Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:A few days ago I chimed in to agree with TMWAU that there is nt easy answer here. Either decision will leave a desolate parent (or parents), and even the standard "what's best for the child" is impossible to apply fairly when a judge or jury in either nation is bound to be biased in favor of that country.

Actually, I think there is an easy answer: Admit that we can't resolve it and stop shouting at each other.

that is why the agreements are international
At the moment the adoption is not valid, since it has been made invalid in the birth country
Guatemala has the right to rescind the adoption. They have done so.
This is no longer an adoption dispute

PP seems to have difficulty distinguishing between the legal and the moral context for "right vs wrong".

takoma wrote:A few days ago I chimed in to agree with TMWAU that there is nt easy answer here. Either decision will leave a desolate parent (or parents), and even the standard "what's best for the child" is impossible to apply fairly when a judge or jury in either nation is bound to be biased in favor of that country.

Actually, I think there is an easy answer: Admit that we can't resolve it and stop shouting at each other.

that is why the agreements are international
At the moment the adoption is not valid, since it has been made invalid in the birth country
Guatemala has the right to rescind the adoption. They have done so.
This is no longer an adoption dispute

A few days ago I chimed in to agree with TMWAU that there is nt easy answer here. Either decision will leave a desolate parent (or parents), and even the standard "what's best for the child" is impossible to apply fairly when a judge or jury in either nation is bound to be biased in favor of that country.

Actually, I think there is an easy answer: Admit that we can't resolve it and stop shouting at each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the child only remembers one mommy or daddy, then how can you rip her from the only parents she has ever known?

Children remember
That child remembers more than what is allowed by dcum

Oh bull. You don't know any more than the rest of us.

It seems lost on you that practically everyone here is a father or mother, too. We all love our children just as much as you. Yet some of us are able to see the difference between what we want for us and what is best for our kids, enough to realize that ripping a child out of the only home they know is a bad thing. You continue to act like the child is mommy's proiperty, there was a theft, and your property must be restored. FYI I had a friend in exactly this same situation, and even he understood that at some point it was selfish to pull the child back.

You may not ever encounter this situation, but plenty of times you will face the reality that a child's interests do not coincide with the parents. I hope you have the maturity to recognize whose interests should prevail.

Anonymous wrote:If someone disagrees w/ u the person's POV is deemed straw man argument.

Bull. Even in this thread, I haven’t called every arg a straw man. (And a POV isn’t an argument.)

Here are some of PP’s straw men args:

“I cannot say a child is always better in an adoptive home.”
***
“The courts should do more than automatically side with the family that has the child on the pretense of what is in the childs best interest.”
***
“Saddens me that people automatically think that even a victim of a violent crime is not entitled to get her child back.”
***
“After all, the adoptive parents must be morally superior, more intelligent, and of course American. So how could a woman from a third world country dare to think she could care for her own child.”

No one took any of the positions that PP “countered.” PP made up her own args to counter, apparently because s/he couldn’t handle the actual ones, apparently because s/he’s an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:Now you call the PP an idiot b/c he/she expresses a sentiment that many also happen to agree with.

It has nothing to do with PP’s “sentiment” (or opinion); it’s how s/he’s presenting it. S/he had plenty of opportunities to argue like a reasonable person, but insisted on all this BS instead.

Anonymous wrote:You are the freaking idiot.

Good one. The “freaking” adds a lot of punch.

Anonymous wrote:To reward the trafficking of kids is awful, and that is what is happening in this situation. It was situations like this that closed the Guatemalean, Vietnam and Cambodian IA programs down.

See, this is perfectly reasonable argument, as opposed to the BS spouted by PP. If you look earlier in the thread, I myself said, “It would make some sense for governments to agree to always return children in these situations, so to discourage the trafficking.”

Anonymous wrote:Ethiopia is in the process of being closed because people think it is ok to steal a child from an under developing country and say it is better off because the kid is on it's way to the USA. I just don't see how people can be so cavalier about children.

Aaaaaaand we’re back to BS. Show me someone anywhere, never mind in this thread, who says “it is ok to steal a child.” Show me someone in this thread being cavalier about children (other than the posters on your side saying that all that matters is the birth mother’s rights).

Here’s the distinction for you. Your first argument is rational and legitimate. The rest is straw man BS.

Anonymous wrote:Oh and upstream you intimated that you would have no problem if someone stole and trafficked one of your children, as long as the kid was sent to a home in Norway.

No I didn’t. More straw man. Like PP, you just waste everyone’s time with this BS. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in crediting you with the ability to distinguish what I wrote from your perversion of it.

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I know my husband does not look at his kids as little wickets with spares and would be equally upsetting if any of his children were trafficked, so I don't think it is a mom/dad thing, but something lacking in you personally.

Oops. I gave you that credit too quickly. You actually think that I consider my kids expendable spares, and that I would blandly admit that here. Amazing.

Anonymous wrote:
If the child only remembers one mommy or daddy, then how can you rip her from the only parents she has ever known?

Children remember
That child remembers more than what is allowed by dcum

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saddens me that people automatically think that even a victim of a violent crime is not entitled to get her child back.
After all, the adoptive parents must be morally superior, more intelligent, and of course American. So how could a woman from a third world country dare to think she could care for her own child.

More straw men. You're an idiot.

I don't get u TMWU. If someone disagrees w/ u the person's POV is deemed straw man argument. Now you call the PP an idiot b/c he/she expresses a sentiment that many also happen to agree with. You are the freaking idiot. To reward the trafficking of kids is awful, and that is what is happening in this situation. It was situations like this that closed the Guatemalean, Vietnam and Cambodian IA programs down. Ethiopia is in the process of being closed because people think it is ok to steal a child from an under developing country and say it is better off because the kid is on it's way to the USA. I just don't see how people can be so cavalier about children.

Oh and upstream you intimated that you would have no problem if someone stole and trafficked one of your children, as long as the kid was sent to a home in Norway. Spares you called your children. I am not the poster you so sarcastically chided when she said you were not a mother and that is why you could so easily give away your children or care so little, but Your response to her was Jeeze, pathetic. FWIW, I know my husband does not look at his kids as little wickets with spares and would be equally upsetting if any of his children were trafficked, so I don't think it is a mom/dad thing, but something lacking in you personally.

Anonymous wrote:Saddens me that people automatically think that even a victim of a violent crime is not entitled to get her child back.
After all, the adoptive parents must be morally superior, more intelligent, and of course American. So how could a woman from a third world country dare to think she could care for her own child.

More straw men. You're an idiot.