Emperor Devon Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Was asking this to a bunch of people on Skype and figured it would make for an okay topic in Kavar's. [6:38:21 PM] The Dev Fiend says:during ww2 the german army rounded up 'aryan' children belonging to polish parents and brought them back to germany from there they were placed under the care of adoptive german parents who did not have children of their own but wanted to the allies were only seriously able to address this problem in 1945 once the war had been won. the bulk of the children were taken from their original parents in 1939 and had spent 6 years with their adoptive ones. their ages weren't consistent. some were babies and some were nearly teenagers when they were originally taken a good number of these children barely remembered their biological parents and did not want to leave their adopted ones (who by then they considered their real parents). this was less common the older the child in question was, but it was the case with a lot of them the allies chose to return the children to their biological parents in nearly all cases. how would you have dealt with this problem More information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 [09:12:09] Sabre: I'd leave the choice upto the kids ...if they're passionate enough about their biological/adoptive parents, else the families should be left to settling the matter on their own, with judicial support if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Unless there's an issue of abuse/neglect, the children should go back to their biological parents. I lost my son for 20 minutes one time when he was 4. It was the worst 20 minutes of my life. The children shouldn't have been removed from their parents in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Unless there's an issue of abuse/neglect, the children should go back to their biological parents. I lost my son for 20 minutes one time when he was 4. It was the worst 20 minutes of my life. The children shouldn't have been removed from their parents in the first place. Why should they be necessarily removed from the adoptive parents they have come to love? You say separation from your child was painful even for 20 minutes, as painful as it would have been for the biological parents, wouldn't it be painful for the adoptive parents, especially for those who got kids that reciprocated their love? I don't believe you can have a catch-all answer for this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 My reply to the question: Samuel Dravis: I'd delegate Make the adoptees and the two families sort it out. Why should something like that be left to anyone else? *I* don't have a stake in it. They do. Samuel Dravis: LIBERTARIANISM INDIVIDUALISM AYN RAND YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 They do. Samuel Dravis: LIBERTARIANISM INDIVIDUALISM AYN RAND YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH rand RAND RRRAAAANNNDDDDD RRRRAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNDDDDDDD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Damn, Devon. 4chan much? Oh, and Objectivism FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Damn, Devon. 4chan much? Oh, and Objectivism FTW. Look, we have a good, original thread in Kavar's for once. A thread I have seen fit to partake in. Let's not take it all off-topic and jump off the cliff, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Very well, Sabre. I think that it should have been worked out between the respective families without any government involvement other than to ensure that as little trauma as possible was visited upon the children in question. Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Very well, Sabre. Better? Yes, thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I don't really think it's the government's place to decide, the "best interests of the children" in cases like this is utter BS. For all the clear-cut cases, particularly with older children, it's easy, they know who their parents are, and can decide where to go. However, for the younger children, it really does need to be between the parents of both families. Just because one set of parents wasn't shipped off to a concentration camp doesn't mean they're evil or Nazi lovers and even if they were it doesn't mean that they couldn't love that child just as much as it's biological parents did. In this case I reference the story of Solomon and the whole halving of the child. It's probable that one of the sets of parents will relent, however, if they do not, all it will do is cause harm to the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I gotta agree with Jae. Would you give kidnappers the child they took and kept for years? No. Is this case different... only marginally so. Ideally(or rather as ideally as the situation permits), both parents should work together to reach a fair and equitable solution. However it is the parent's child. They want their child back. They did not voluntarily give that child up. Their child was kidnapped, and given to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allronix Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 For this case, perhaps some sort of joint custody or other arrangement can be worked out, particularly if the children loved their German parents as much as their Polish ones. While tempting to tar and feather the adoptive parents as Nazi collaborators, some were only guilty of wanting a child in their lives and were likely duped into believing the kids were war orphans. In the GFFA, there's a similar case, "Baby Ludi." And it's one of the reasons that I wince when I think of the Clone Wars-era Jedi and have a generally dim view of the Order in general. In that case, the Jedi found a Force-sensitive infant in the midst of a disaster area and could not locate the parents. So, being Jedi, they take the youngling to the temple, give her a new name and start their mental conditioning. Problem: Some months later, the mother, who was injured in the disaster (was incapacitated, has now recovered), shows up and wants her baby returned to her. The Jedi, citing their "no family" policies, tell the mom that the child's been opened to the Force, is theirs now, and be grateful that her kid has such a promising destiny. (Which still translates to "sod off.") Ludi (or Aris-Del) is all of two years old and cannot voice a preference. So, seeing as this is Kavarr's Corner, I'll pose this juicy bit before the debate squad. What's the call in THIS case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Would you give kidnappers the child they took and kept for years? Useless rhetoric. These adoptive parents did no "kidnapping". The only kidnappers would be the nazis, and at the point of this hypothetical scenario, they're dead. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 So.....those parents didn't know they were "receiving stolen goods"? Assuming they were told the kids were just "aryan orphans", it would probably be a tough choice. Maybe not so much in the case of the older (teen/preteen) kids. Still, it'd probably be best to return the children to their biological parents so long as they weren't criminals, mentally unbalanced or abusive (or any variation thereof). @Dev....geez, I hope she wrote better than she looked. Seriously, though, is Atlas Shrugged a dry read or a relatively easy one? Never got around to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Useless rhetoric. These adoptive parents did no "kidnapping". The only kidnappers would be the nazis, and at the point of this hypothetical scenario, they're dead. _EW_ guess you missed this part Is this case different... only marginally so. You must not have kids. Seems rather straight forward to me. A child was stolen from the real parents. Parents that loved their child and cared for the child. Now because someone was the recipient of a stolen baby they suddenly gain more rights than the birth parents? That doesn't make sense to me. If I buy a stolen painting, I'm still responsible for returning that painting to the rightful owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 guess you missed this part No, I was just pointing out that your argument was rather flawed. You must not have kids. Seems rather straight forward to me. A child was stolen from the real parents. Parents that loved their child and cared for the child. Now because someone was the recipient of a stolen baby they suddenly gain more rights than the birth parents? That doesn't make sense to me. If I buy a stolen painting, I'm still responsible for returning that painting to the rightful owner. 1. I do not have kids. 2. I'm not sure why you're judging here - I never have given my opinion in this thread. However, since you so rudely assumed: [4/15/2009 9:58:10 PM] Ender Wiggin says: I'll play your game, [Devon]: [4/15/2009 9:58:20 PM] Ender Wiggin says: I would have also returned their children Thanks anyway. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 No, I was just pointing out that your argument was rather flawed. 1. I do not have kids. 2. I'm not sure why you're judging here - I never have given my opinion in this thread. However, since you so rudely assumed: Thanks anyway. _EW_ Your rudeness was returned. Though I appologize for the assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 You must not have kids. Clearly, an adoptive parent could never love a child as much as it's birth parents, and the child could never truly love them. Seems rather straight forward to me. A child was stolen from the real parents. Parents that loved their child and cared for the child. But nothing was done about it before love formed between the new parents and the child. If your argument is "the first parents love the child!" then my counter is "The second parents love the child!" Lets make a checklist: Parents A love the child. Parents B love the child. Parents A care for the child. Parents B care for the child. Child loves Parent ?. Parents A had child first. Parents B did not have child first. Tearing the child out of the new home is just as bad as taking it in the first place. Assuming that both households are loving homes, in the cases of very young children that do not remember the original parents, why should we screw up the kids life again by forcing them to love someone else? Now because someone was the recipient of a stolen baby they suddenly gain more rights than the birth parents? That doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense because it isn't the case and you're being silly about it. At best, the child should decide, at worst, assuming both parents are equitable and loving, they should work something out. We can't just toss children around like toys and assume they'll "adapt". Losing the parents you love and being given to parents you resent for taking you away from that is not going to foster a good relationship. If I buy a stolen painting, I'm still responsible for returning that painting to the rightful owner. While in 1945 children might have still been property, such is not the case now. A picture and a child are nowhere near the same thing, worlds upon worlds of difference. You can't just hang the child's love on a new wall. You can't just expect the child to be OK with any of it(as a picture cannot voice opposition). That's the whole problem with our system, it's all focused on what the parents want, and rarely takes into account the desires of the child. Sure, for the very very young, this works, for children who are old enough to speak their minds, which isn't that old, they should get the final say in deciding which family to stay with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 @Dev....geez, I hope she wrote better than she looked. Seriously, though, is Atlas Shrugged a dry read or a relatively easy one? Never got around to it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I lmao'd too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 RAND RRRAAAANNNDDDDD RRRRAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD RRRRRAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNDDDDDDD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Ayn Rand aside, I might suggest allowing the children to decide on the issue, but many were not old enough to decide on their own. How would I have handled it? I'm not sure, but just giving them back to their parents without a second thought is not best for any of the involved participants: the children have been removed from their environment, and the parents are now equipped with a burden not felt in a multitude of years, amongst other reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 First off, let me say I do not have children, so I know nothing of the love a biological parent has for a child beyond being a son to 4 parents. From my experience with 4 parents I will say that I believe an adoptive parent can love a child that is not biological child just as much as they do their own flesh and blood. I’m only replying to this thread because Devon asked my opinion, but in all honesty I just don’t know. On one hand returning them seems to be the proper course of actions since they were removed involuntarily. However, I can also see how that is compounding one traumatic experience for the child with another one that could be just as traumatic. Sorry Devon, I don’t have a blanket answer. If it were my decision I would take it on case by case basics. To me the decision should have been made in what was in each child’s best interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.