[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.