Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×
michel555555

mother deemed too stupid to keep child

Recommended Posts

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.


whalenuke.png

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!

angel2w.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that "unless" thing is blowing my mind. I think it can go both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


fishing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


fishing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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:


michel555555.png

[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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


28jkzuv.jpg2a9b8sy.jpgwqx853.jpg

gridblack.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Iron_0utkast.png

Maxed 15/06/13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.