1) It is a good thing that you didn't link this to any other claims, or I would think you were making snark about this claim
2) I just want to be clear that a parent's relationship with and responsibility for a child is so obviously different from that of two adults with/for each other that it isn't even funny.
3) If the mother (or father) learns / realizes that they suffer from alcoholism that they cannot control, and that under the influence of alcohol they behave in dangerous ways towards their children, then I would say that yes, that parent could justifiably leave their children out of love until the situation changed.
Any other circumstance that meant that the parent was directly or indirectly a danger to their children through their proximity would apply in the same way.
A responsible parent would arrange for care, either through family and friends or the state, work towards addressing whatever problem they feel is a danger to their children, and return as soon as possible (IMHO).
Alternatively, the state will intervene if they feel you are a danger to your children, and remove you / the child from the situation regardless of whether you love them.
A relationship with a dependent is a highly special kind of relationship. This can be true, but the parent must do his/her best to see that the dependent is cared for. There were some heartbreaking stories of parents doing this during the Holocaust. If they could get a Christian family to take in the child, the child might pass as non-Jewish and live. The parents would have to abandon their child(ren) and cease all contact to save the child(ren)'s lives. Tragic, but I would argue done out of true love.
True, and I think when you're dealing with a dependent what is important is protecting that dependent's interests. I just would also say that it was most likely an act of love, and to claim the parents lacked love because of their act would be massively insulting and deeply wrong.
Disagree on the basis of what has already been said. Many instances can be postulated wherein the parent would be justified in leaving. Any parent with an issue that could seriously damage the child (eg physical, emotional, or sexual abuse toward the child or the child's siblings/other parental figure) that they know they cannot control would be better leaving to deal with those issues in an environment where the child is not subjected to their repercussions. If the parent is unable to overcome these issues, it will be morally justifiable for them to not return in order to protect their child from themselves.
I am sure Susan Smith's children would have agreed.
Discussion (6)
1) It is a good thing that you didn't link this to any other claims, or I would think you were making snark about this claim
2) I just want to be clear that a parent's relationship with and responsibility for a child is so obviously different from that of two adults with/for each other that it isn't even funny.
3) If the mother (or father) learns / realizes that they suffer from alcoholism that they cannot control, and that under the influence of alcohol they behave in dangerous ways towards their children, then I would say that yes, that parent could justifiably leave their children out of love until the situation changed.
Any other circumstance that meant that the parent was directly or indirectly a danger to their children through their proximity would apply in the same way.
A responsible parent would arrange for care, either through family and friends or the state, work towards addressing whatever problem they feel is a danger to their children, and return as soon as possible (IMHO).
Alternatively, the state will intervene if they feel you are a danger to your children, and remove you / the child from the situation regardless of whether you love them.
A relationship with a dependent is a highly special kind of relationship. This can be true, but the parent must do his/her best to see that the dependent is cared for. There were some heartbreaking stories of parents doing this during the Holocaust. If they could get a Christian family to take in the child, the child might pass as non-Jewish and live. The parents would have to abandon their child(ren) and cease all contact to save the child(ren)'s lives. Tragic, but I would argue done out of true love.
I don't think that it's important that it can be shown that it is out of love. It makes more sense to say that it was in the child's best interest.
True, and I think when you're dealing with a dependent what is important is protecting that dependent's interests. I just would also say that it was most likely an act of love, and to claim the parents lacked love because of their act would be massively insulting and deeply wrong.
Claims inspired by this comment
Love can be used as an excuse to avoid taking any responsibility for the person or object loved.Disagree on the basis of what has already been said. Many instances can be postulated wherein the parent would be justified in leaving. Any parent with an issue that could seriously damage the child (eg physical, emotional, or sexual abuse toward the child or the child's siblings/other parental figure) that they know they cannot control would be better leaving to deal with those issues in an environment where the child is not subjected to their repercussions. If the parent is unable to overcome these issues, it will be morally justifiable for them to not return in order to protect their child from themselves.
I am sure Susan Smith's children would have agreed.
Disagree on the basis of what has already been said.
Disagree?
Perhaps you should take a quick glance at your vote.