The state can take away your kids?

[Moonbear]

You can object to a lot of things the government does and simply seem like you are excercizing your right to criticize it, but if you object on this particular issue you will immediately be seen as taking a pro-child abuse stance. I think that's probably why no one would object to it in principle.

Right. And people DO object when it is misused and children are taken away from parents based on hearsay only, with no evidence of abuse, such as when one parent lies about the other to obtain custody during bitter divorces.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Yeah I'd say Pengwuino was trolling.

But he brings up a good point about the inconsistency in people. Pengwuino you're just going to have to pick a topic that is more of a gray area if you want a rise out of people.

 

[Wishbone]

You can object to a lot of things the government does and simply seem like you are excercizing your right to criticize it, but if you object on this particular issue you will immediately be seen as taking a pro-child abuse stance. I think that's probably why no one would object to it in principle.

I disagree, I think all people who address this issue, take is seriously, and surley the laws show that it is not of any whim of the state that a child can be taken away from his/her parents. Perhaps there is very little uproar because of the fact it is a power that is not abused. However if you feel the govt. has no right to protect a child from abusive parents, then you should be labeled a pro-abuser, and an idiot. However, the reason no one objects to it in principle, and hardly even in exercise is because it makes moral (and common) sense.

 

[Loren Booda]

Facing bankruptcy, families in most states have the hard choice of giving government custody over their child in order for the kid to receive needed but costly medical help. There's got to be a better way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I disagree, I think all people who address this issue, take is seriously, and surley the laws show that it is not of any whim of the state that a child can be taken away from his/her parents. Perhaps there is very little uproar because of the fact it is a power that is not abused. However if you feel the govt. has no right to protect a child from abusive parents, then you should be labeled a pro-abuser, and an idiot. However, the reason no one objects to it in principle, and hardly even in exercise is because it makes moral (and common) sense.

Yeah, I'm just speculating about why people who are anti-government control might pull their punches on this particular case of government control. It was a thought off the top of my head. You have stated a reason as fact, so I guess you've researched this or done polls or something.