Separated At Birth, But Why? (Trees And Things)

thefadd: Think This Is Okay?

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:29:27 EST

What do you think about this.

Shy Elf: But Why?

Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:56:57 EST

The point is that they were separated not because it was in their interest, but because the state allowed research to take priority over the best interests of the children. This is clearly unethical. It may sometimes be in the best interests of

Degee: Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:17:47 EST

My point was to ask you how far you would go with your contention that it is ok, on balance, for the state to make well-intentioned decisions without permission of individuals.

In this case the individuals are the twins or, due to their youth, who

joshv: Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:57:32 EST

When you place a child up for adoption, you are entrusting the best interest of the child to the state. You shouldn't be able to put any preconditions on the adoptive parents. If you want to direct the future course of the child's life, don't g

Degee: Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:55:56 EST

So do you think the state doesn't need to ask permission of the individual (in this case the biological mother) no matter how well intentioned their purposes? Would you qualify that if possible? For example, do you believe we all should be default organ do

TonedEff: Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:58:36 EST

But the doctor didn't gain any excellent research as a result of the separation of these two. They were dropped from the study. But, I sort of agree with you that the twins are whining over what exactly? Why should they be so hypercritica

joshv: Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:16:28 EST

So two kids were given perfectly acceptable and adequate adoptive families and somehow this is a bad thing? Children are split up all of the time in adoption. It's sometimes easier to find two adoptive families looking for one child, than it is