Quote:
Originally Posted by steeljack
lets be honest, 99.999% of most folks have absolutly no interest in looking at pictures of children they dont know , would go so far as to say that most folks think other folks kids are ugly brats probably in need of a smack , only your own are cute ,
Personally, I am not willing to risk that the other 0.001% (even by your 'guesstimate') are going to be looking at my child. I believe a parents job is to protect their child, and I willdo my utmost to do so. At the school nativity, we were allowed to take photos but of our own children, or of those known to us. Itwas a fair arrangement, no parents refused to have their child on a photo,and there was an element of trust there. However I do not want some stranger to know what my child looks like, their name or enough information to do any harm. If there were only good in the world, we would not have cases of child abuse or abduction. Yes I may be overreacting,but I would ratherdo that than risk the consequences
As for the argument it allows 'psycho' parents to track down their own kids , its probably in most cases the custodial parent who has psychlogical problems . A child is the product of two people and unless EXTREME circumstances exist (in which case the offending parent should by neccessity be under supervised care) there should be no problem with the childs image appearing in the media .
|
Ah ok, so a parent that has abused a child should still be allowed to see the child as long as its in supervised care??? Be it mental,physical or sexual abuse, if a parent is able to do that to a child, they deserve to lose rights to it