[James_K]

Exactly, and I've always said the same thing about murderers. Why should we pay for police to catch murderers when the murderers could just not murder? This seems like a matter of individual, rather than collective responsibility. If they don't murder, it is better for us, better for them, and better for their victims. Why should we have to protect the victims of murderers when murderers could simply not kill people?

Without the sarcasm now, the victims of bad parents are no different than the victims of any other crime. Yes, it may be the parents' fault that their child has a bad life just as it is a murderer's fault that his victims die, but that hardly justifies it happening. A child cannot choose their parents any more than you can choose not to be the victim of a crime. It seems obvious to me that, as a society, we should protect the vulnerable from those who might harm them.

[liveoneggs]

It would be better for society if someone inclined to murder did not. Police do not protect the victim of murder -- they are dead already.

Your view appears to say "society" (the police?) should "protect" children from their own parents, if they are deemed "bad"? The line for police intervention should probably not include "living in a bad neighborhood" or "being poor". Those strategies are tried pretty often by evangelicals who steal poor children from vulnerable countries/populations, yet are perceived as bad by most people.

If the fault is with the parents then isn't it just as likely with the grandparents? or great grandparents? and so on down the line?

[James_K]

> Police do not protect the victim of murder

But if they could, they most certainly should. Preventing murder is good, just as preventing a bad childhood is good.

> Your view appears to say "society" (the police?)

The police are (or should be) an extension of society. They are a part of the government, which in a democracy means the represent the will of the people, and hence they are society manifest. There are other manifestations of society that can help these children (schools, social services, etc). I am obviously not suggesting that the police become child catchers and round up all children of poor people.

> If the fault is with the parents then isn't it just as likely with the grandparents? or great grandparents? and so on down the line?

From my perspective, there is no "fault". Blaming people for things is unproductive. There are bad things which might happen, and things we might do to prevent them from happening. If we can sever this great chain of injustice of which you speak, where poverty and suffering are transmitted from parent to child like a disease; aught we not take that action? It is even in our best interest to do so, as those children who live better lives will go on to contribute more in taxes and more towards the betterment of society.

[raxxorraxor]

Government has the responsibility to provide access to education and make it as transient as possible in regards to class. But government by experience is usually also a bad legal guardian, even if the people involved really want to help these kids.

Perhaps they get lucky and grow up in a good adoptive family. But for the others there are a few things that are quite difficult to replace.

A democracy isn't a manifested society, it is a compromise of everyone involved. Ideally at least, the reality is more gray and even in a democracy a government doesn't have the legitimacy to do everything it wants. Further its ability to evaluate which children would benefit from more direct support is limited.

So perhaps you need not only look at the children and instead try to improve the lives of the parents as well.

[James_K]

> So perhaps you need not only look at the children and instead try to improve the lives of the parents as well.

Clearly. It was other people who started suggesting that the children of poor parents should be forcibly put up for adoption. I can't fathom why anyone would think this is a good idea or even worth talking about.

[raxxorraxor]

Ah, sorry, then I misunderstood your point. I though you were suggesting that it would be a productive thing to do. Empirical evidence of the past would suggest otherwise and I believe government only ever has legitimacy to remove children from their home when they are in acute and tangible danger.

Nothing that should be decided by some sensibilities du jour.

[liveoneggs]

I think it's when you said "the victims of bad parents are no different than the victims of any other crime"

[James_K]

There are many different crimes with different severities, and hence different responses.