Lenin64 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep. Incorrect wording. Unless. Unless in this context means, that A will only be carried out if B is fulfilled before hand. So to take care of the child she has to be stupid. No. It means that unless she is stupid, she can keep it. Meaning as long as she's not stupid, she can keep it. Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_burritos Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep. Incorrect wording. Unless. Unless in this context means, that A will only be carried out if B is fulfilled before hand. So to take care of the child she has to be stupid. No. It means that unless she is stupid, she can keep it. Meaning as long as she's not stupid, she can keep it. Argh. I see. [bleep]ing commas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Wow, that "unless" thing is blowing my mind. I think it can go both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smapla Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 can you guys just... i don't know, shut the hell up? derailing topics to have your egotistical battles where all you do is try to prove eachothers grammar to be incorrect in a feeble attempt to gain credibility really detracts from the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 While it's hard to speak too confidently about this case without knowing the details I know enough about this kind of thing to know that the courts always (and rightly so) put the child's best interests first, and almost always the child's best interests is to stay with their natural mother. It's normally quite an exceptional case when the child is taken away from the parents. This case sounds a little bit unusual since the mother seems passingly capable, but I suspect the media stories will heavily be biased against "the government" when in reality it was the judge's decision. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 can you guys just... i don't know, shut the hell up? derailing topics to have your egotistical battles where all you do is try to prove eachothers grammar to be incorrect in a feeble attempt to gain credibility really detracts from the board. Yeah, being a hypocrite is much better. :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Housepig Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Just another chance for the media to snipe at the government; you have to consider these things without emotion. It's highly unlikely that a decision like this would have been made without sufficient reason, and while I sympathize with the emotional side of the affair, I don't see why a mother incapable of raising a child should be allowed to do so. Her argument that she has some kind of 'right' to do so holds no water--it's ridiculous how she makes out that the government are denying her her child out pure malice. The article happily ommited any details that may have allowed readers to come to an informed and rational judgement, prefering instead to try and provoke an emotional response. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smapla Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 can you guys just... i don't know, shut the hell up? derailing topics to have your egotistical battles where all you do is try to prove eachothers grammar to be incorrect in a feeble attempt to gain credibility really detracts from the board. Yeah, being a hypocrite is much better. :thumbup: glad you agree and .999... still equates to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 You guys act like the government never makes bad decisions. But I guess you could say that I act like the media never blows things out of proportion. :lol: glad you agree and .999... still equates to 1. You cry about derailing topics, egotistical battles, attempting to gain credibility, and detracting from the board and you're doing it 10 times worse than them. You're bringing up stuff from almost two years ago. Normally I'd insult you, but you're insulting yourself enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel555555 Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 The article happily ommited any details that may have allowed readers to come to an informed and rational judgement, prefering instead to try and provoke an emotional response. Trying to find a better one but its basically impossible. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5417283/Social-services-in-Nottingham-claim-mother-is-too-stupid-to-bring-up-child.html Only article i can find that actually has new information and that is that the authorities were concerned about the mother not visiting the child enough. If anyone can find a better article can you please help me out. And whats with all the personal attacks on tip it latly. :thumbdown: [spoiler=click you know you wanna]Me behave? Seriously? As a child I saw Tarzan almost naked, Cinderella arrived home from a party after midnight, Pinocchio told lies, Aladin was a thief, Batman drove over 200 miles an hour, Snow White lived in a house with seven men, Popeye smoked a pipe and had tattoos, Pac man ran around to digital music while eating pills that enhanced his performance, and Shaggy and Scooby were mystery solving hippies who always had the munchies. The fault is not mine! if you had this childhood and loved it put this in your signature! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterGreen Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I hate articles like this. They never specified on why the mother was unfit to take care of the child. As such, I cannot make a proper judgement on whether the mother was fit to take care of the child or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alg Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Officials claim Miss Pullen, a single mother, from Nottingham, lacks the intelligence to cope with the complex medical needs of the child, who was born prematurely. Well, if that's the case, it may be for the best. It'd probably be better to just give her support in raising the child though. Baby gets care, she gets to at least help give it. I painted some stuff and put it on tumblr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_de_Sable Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 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. Sorry, awkward wording. I mean unless it is physically impossible to properly rear up her child then it is hers to raise. [English translation needed] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_burritos Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I see. Like a gimpy arm. Gotcha' ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_de_Sable Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 You guys act like the government never makes bad decisions. But I guess you could say that I act like the media never blows things out of proportion. :lol: glad you agree and .999... still equates to 1. You cry about derailing topics, egotistical battles, attempting to gain credibility, and detracting from the board and you're doing it 10 times worse than them. You're bringing up stuff from almost two years ago. Normally I'd insult you, but you're insulting yourself enough. =D> =D> =D> Well said, Zierro. [English translation needed] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plugpoint Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 She seems pretty dumb but not that stupid. Seems like she'd be able to cope a lot better than most of the underage mums who rely on their own parents to look after themselves and their child. I feel sorry for her tbh, best of luck to her. Maxed 15/06/13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now