Is Psychological Abuse the Lesser of Two Evils When Compared to Physical Abuse? Ah, the question to ponder even though physical abuse has its hands in psychological abuse as well. I suppose the difference is the mere thought of "being simply" (not used lightly) psychologically abused versus the physical/ sexual abuse and the psychological torture that comes with it.

Then again, when you are born into a family of not only physical but sexual abuse, do you simply look at the plain psychologial abuse as "nothing" and thank God your not being beat or sexually abused? When you date a guy in high school who beats the hell out of you for 3.5 years, are you doing it out of desperation of love or the conditioning of your behavior/life when you were younger at the hands of a parent(s) who is suppose to nurture, love and protect you? Is this merely a pattern of what is to be?

With that, should there be laws for those who wish to "become" parents? Seems abusrd, right? But in a day-of-age where we are legalizing gay marriages and attempting to legalize prostitution, does it not or should it not call into question why one of the most difficult and meaningful JOBS in this entire world be given some type of QUALIFICATIONS?

Why not, we legalize and put laws on everything else, right?

I suppose that question should be best asked of the 896,000 children last year that were atually found to have been victims of abuse or neglect out of the 2.6 million reports filed—an average of more than 2,450 children per day, or how about the nearly FOUR children that die EVERYDAY due to abuse and/or neglect-they cannot even speak for themselves anymore.

Why do we seek to spend so much time and money on the things that or less important and not a guarantee in this country's constitution, yet we fail to spend as much if not more time and money on those who cannot defend themselves?

Very interesting.. one I've heard before. Me? I'm more along the lines of no.

Then again, the same should be true for people who abuse and neglect animals too. Should we have laws that forbid anyone to adopt animals who "might" abuse or neglect them?

What do we base the criteria on? How would we know if one would be a terrible parent or not? The only thing that prevents me from saying a maybe is that, I am against anything pre-emptive.

I'll give you an example. My Mom adopted four children not her own, and they were severely neglected, abused prior, etc. And even living in our home growing up the circumstances were not perfect or ideal. They all acted out growing up, seemed to be headed in the wrong direction. Three out of the four children she raised are now parents themselves and three of the four are raising those children to the best of their ability.

They love their children with all their hearts. Two I would even go so far as to say they are perfect parents. Now, should they have been denied the right to bear children based on their history growing up? I say no. However, one of the three has two children, on being a special needs. She has made some questionable judgments with them, however she still has them and they do love their children.

Perhaps a trial session? Let them have one child and see how they do? Nah.

So when do we finally say enough is enough with the Government meddling in our everyday lives and decisions?

Also, I hardly would make the comparison between people having children and someone having the right to do with their bodies as they wish. Are we still not a free society? True we are a Nation of Laws, not men - but we were born on the idea of being Free to Choose for ourselves.

Tada! There is my thoughtful post for the year. :laugh:

Absolutely not. And not really worth discussing IMO since it violates all sorts of basic rights and also because there is no way we'd even agree on what a good parent is and what the qualifications are to be a parent.

Now the discussion of what makes a good parent could be interesting, but not the idea that the government should legislate this.

Interesting.

As an adoptive mom, DH and I DID have to jump through those hoops and laws to become parents. If we hadn't wanted it [to become parents] so bad, we wouldn't have made it through the process. It was long, tons of paperwork and in some cases utterly ridiculous. BUT that was what was required and so that's what we did.

Are there regrets? NONE!!! We have a beautiful daughter who is 2 1/2 years old now. We picked her up from the hospital when she was 2 days old. She's smart, funny and a total delight, even when she's in Drama Queen mode which is often since it includes when she's happy or sad or ... !

It makes me angry to hear of what people do to their children. We have a case near us of a 4 year old girl who was kidnapped from a van, beaten, raped and partially buried alive in a near-by raisin field. She and several other children (cousins, siblings and friends) were sleeping in the van in the driveway while their parents were at a Christmas Eve party at a relative's house. A family friend at the party is the one who took her. Her parents and some family members are the ones who found her shortly after, then called police. Everyone is crying poor little girl (of course, it's horrible what she went through!) AND oh those poor parents! EXCUSE ME! They are the ones who put her in danger to begin with! How dare they put their daughter in a VAN with other children in the DRIVEWAY to sleep! Let alone we had a storm coming in and temps were in the high 20s, low 30s that night!!!!! Could it not have troubled the family (extended) to clear a bedroom for the children to sleep in while the party was going on?!! Could it not have troubled the parents of this poor little girl to have not asked for a place INSIDE the home to lay their precious girl down for sleep? If that wasn't possible, why then did the parents not go home where their daughter could have slept warm and comfortable in her own bed? Just boggles my mind! There is no talk of charging any of the parents with neglect in putting their children in a van to sleep in frigid temps in the driveway.

The man who beat, raped and tried to kill the little girl is in jail at this point.

I just hope that little girl gets the counseling and care she needs in order to have a somewhat decent life in the aftermath of what was done to her. I doubt that will happen though based on the activities of her parents.

Whew! Okay. Can we say hot-button issue for Michelle? LOL! Sorry I went off. This has been pissing me off since I first heard about it.

I have nightmares about the horrible things that could happen to DD. The least of which is what happened to this 4 year old girl. I feel a HUGE responsibility to protect and raise my DD right. She was voluntarily placed in our arms by her birthmother b/c she thought we would be the best parents for her daughter. I take that very seriously. I would too if I had given birth to DD myself BUT there is a little added pressure b/c DD is adopted.

Anyway. I'm done now!

I think if there were laws in place, then I'd never have been allowed to have my daughter.

I was young, stupid, out of work, and a recent alcoholic and drug addict. Hey! Sign me up for motherhood!

When I found out I was pregnant, I stopped all that stuff.

I was also born into an abusive family - sexually abusive towards young girls, so I don't think I'd have been allowed to be born to my mother....

God knows what conditions my grandmother was born into!

So, a whole line of us up-standing (and IMO WONDERFUL) people wouldn't have been born if there were "good parent" laws.

Now, as for removing kids that are in an abusive situation - I'm all for it.

But, look what happened in TX this past summer...the state took all kids (required to take all if ANY sexual abuse is suspect) and people got up in arms over it.

So, even the laws that we have in place aren't perfect, or widely accepted. Let's get those cleared up before we make new ones.

Oh and I forgot to add that I don't agree. The government has their nose in to things they shouldn't already. They do not need to be regulating who can and can not become pregnant.

Absolutely not. And not really worth discussing IMO since it violates all sorts of basic rights and also because there is no way we'd even agree on what a good parent is and what the qualifications are to be a parent.

Now the discussion of what makes a good parent could be interesting, but not the idea that the government should legislate this.

And I suppose that was part of my point-The Government medling and or setting tones with certain subjects, ideas etc.etc. where they should not be.

The other part was the abuse itself. We spend soo much time and money advocating rights for homosexual marriage, abortions, making prostitution legal or even giving illegal immigrants more rights than their victims, but we fail to help those who are too young and vulnerable to help themsleves. More importantly, they are suffering at the hands of those who are "suppose" to protect them.

My hangup is the returning of these neglected and/or abused children to their parents not once, not twice but multiple times after taking them away for one reason or another.

When do we say enough is enough?

I am very well aware that there is no way in hel* there will ever be laws for one to become a parent, although the other post about adoptive parents having to go through classes, training and background checks kind of touches on that now doesn't it?

I am curious though as to what basic rights this would in turn violate? If it violates the basic right to procreate/to evolve, would it then mean we all should procreate and if we do not we are in violation of the natural process, or homosexuals should not have children because they did not "pro create" them themselves? I am pretty sure, but I would have not go back and read that the Constitution does NOT say anything about guaranteeing anyone the right to bear children---however, again I would have to go back and read the verbiage to debate this further.

**PS....this is merely a debate about the subject, please do not take my responses as how I view anything, but rather nothing more than a debate about parents whom abuse and neglect their children!

Edited December 31, 200817 yr by MeatballsMom

Now, as for removing kids that are in an abusive situation - I'm all for it.

But, look what happened in TX this past summer...the state took all kids (required to take all if ANY sexual abuse is suspect) and people got up in arms over it.

So, even the laws that we have in place aren't perfect, or widely accepted. Let's get those cleared up before we make new ones.

I agree with getting the laws straight with respect to the above and the removal of the children in Texas. I also wonder why it is that our country is so open to accept homosexual marriage but not polygamy (no, I am not a polygamist just playing devils advocate).

Oh and I forgot to add that I don't agree. The government has their nose in to things they shouldn't already. They do not need to be regulating who can and can not become pregnant.

So would it be safe to "assume" then that they should not regulate abortions either?

True meatball... why not? I have always been one to say if it makes you happy then by all means. As long as you are not infringing on or hurting someone else.

Why do I care if a man I don't even know marries another man? Why do I care if a woman wants to have three husbands (and all husbands are aware of and agreeable to this)? Frankly I really don't care.

True meatball... why not? I have always been one to say if it makes you happy then by all means. As long as you are not infringing on or hurting someone else.

Why do I care if a man I don't even know marries another man? Why do I care if a woman wants to have three husbands (and all husbands are aware of and agreeable to this)? Frankly I really don't care.

Thats cool-- I was just curious on some of the double standards I see from society as to what is important what is not, what is worthy of a cause what is not, who/what is more important to protect and who/what is not..etc...etc..

I honestly do not care if a man has two or three wives or if a woman has two or three husbands so long as there are ZERO consequences that come out of those relationships that SOCIETY (meaning US) must spend our time and money taking care of.

The reason for all those 'requirements' for adoptive parents to submit to before they can adopt is not for the 'parents' sake, but for the 'states' sake. The state wants to be able to say " before we gave this child to that family, we thouroughly checked their background, we gave them parenting classes, we finger printed them and checked their background, we digged into their psychy, we learned about their upbringing, etc. If you think they did that for you so you could 'learn' about parenting, you are mistaken. They will tell you that they have you do all those requirements for your benifit but in reality, They want to be able to defend themselves in court giving you a child should you abuse that child and they are questioned as to why they allowed you to adopt. The government never seems to do anything for 'your' (or the childs ) benefit. It's all for them.

That's why, in my opinion, we need to keep the gov. out of as much as possible.

So would it be safe to "assume" then that they should not regulate abortions either?

We have to have some laws. Otherwise we would have chaos. Regulating abortion is important because it is a life and death situation. And for the life of me, I can't understand why we have a law aginst man killing man (murder laws) but not mom killing babies law. That's a whole nother topic!

We will never be able to control all the evils of this world through making laws for every little thing, we can only try to 'curb' the evil.

I agree with getting the laws straight with respect to the above and the removal of the children in Texas. I also wonder why it is that our country is so open to accept homosexual marriage but not polygamy (no, I am not a polygamist just playing devils advocate).

I believe our laws are becoming more open to accepting homosexual marriage because the minority (homosexuals) have a loud voice and wants the rest of the people to agree with them that thier lifestyle is an acceptable choice for them. I personally don't agree with that. (most people here know my stance on that, so I wont go into it unless i'm questioned.) I don't understand either why some in this country find that the homosexual lifestyle and marriage is ok, but it's not ok to marry more than 1 person, or to marry your sibling, etc. But then again, some in this country feel it's ok to abort unborn children and feel that marajuana and prostitution should be legalized. Go figure.

The reason for all those 'requirements' for adoptive parents to submit to before they can adopt is not for the 'parents' sake, but for the 'states' sake. The state wants to be able to say " before we gave this child to that family, we thouroughly checked their background, we gave them parenting classes, we finger printed them and checked their background, we digged into their psychy, we learned about their upbringing, etc. If you think they did that for you so you could 'learn' about parenting, you are mistaken. They will tell you that they have you do all those requirements for your benifit but in reality, They want to be able to defend themselves in court giving you a child should you abuse that child and they are questioned as to why they allowed you to adopt. The government never seems to do anything for 'your' (or the childs ) benefit. It's all for them.

That's why, in my opinion, we need to keep the gov. out of as much as possible.

Ummm, if your post was for me. You didn't need to point any of that out for me. DH and I were NEVER told all the hoops and paperwork were for OUR benefit. We knew up front that it's all for the State's benefit. Both of us have worked with/for Government for years and darn well know where their interests lie. But, uh, thanks, I guess.

It was inresponse to what you said above, but not directly for you. It was more to point out how 'Our Government' likes us to believe that waht they have us do and what they do is for our benefit and the benefit of the children, but it's most definitely not. Thus why making more laws which require certain requirements to be met before you can do ANYTHING are absurd sometimes. Who's going to enforce these laws?