Why? Their values are right, and all they're doing is not giving some people the opportunity to harm others. They're not forcing others to agree with them.Cirion Spellbinder wrote:^
I'm not certain if it's illegal, but I would consider it unethical as I don't think adoption agencies should have the right to impose their values on otherwise law abiding citizens. Should a Christian adoption agency have the right to only offer children to Christian parents?
The difference between this and the Christian agency scenario is that this agency is stopping parents from harming kids, while the Christian agency would actually be harming kids, regardless of what it thinks it's doing.
I think what you're saying may be comparable to saying, "It's unethical for vegans refuse to prepare meat for meat-eaters. Vegans might not want to eat meat, but they'd be imposing their values on others by doing that, so it's wrong."
But maybe you're saying it's more of an issue like... "How can we make the laws so that adoption agencies have the legal right to refuse kids to abusive but technically law-abiding parents, without allowing adoption agencies to say that parents who aren't Christians don't fall under this category? Sure, those people are wrong, but how would it work in practice?"
Hm...
In self-defense, ok, and only to the extent where you stop the kid from causing harm. But I was thinking about it being acceptable as a form of punishment or not.Cirion Spellbinder wrote:It would probably be acceptable to beat a child in self defense. It would probably not be the best method or even an effective method of preventing the assault, but in such a high stress scenario it might be justified.
If it's not best method, then I think that that might excuse the person doing it, but not the action itself.