Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Removing a child from long-term caregivers is harmful to the child
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Harm from removal must be weighed against ongoing harm from abusive or neglectful caregiving environments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Developmental psychology shows that children demonstrate significant resilience and recovery capacity when placed in stable, nurturing alternative care.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A claim that removal is harmful does not entail that remaining is less harmful, making the comparative judgment morally decisive.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit's 'psychological parent' doctrine has been critiqued for overweighting attachment bonds while underweighting children's rights to safety and flourishing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Caregiver duration alone is an insufficient basis for harm assessments without accounting for the quality and character of the caregiving relationship.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Where a child has been looked after by a person or people for some time, being taken away from them is very damaging to the child
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.