Campaign Creations

Yes, this is news story I'm returning with.

This was in the news a while ago too but now the mother got 9 to 30 years in jail.

No matter how strange people are in my life, I always have to remind myself that there are stranger people out there. 

So, she first gives him up for adoption, then she tracks down him just to have sex with him? A so caring mother... World is really crazy today...

Is there something wrong with this?

Lavarinth wrote: Is there something wrong with this?

lol

EDIT: Actually, I found another article (this) where she exposes her version of the story. It seems like the boy's adoptive family's social worker asked his permission to find her, because "he was getting unmanageable at home and they hoped his real mother might be able to set him straight." Well, it seems like no one told her that while sex may always be tempting, you must find other ways to set your own son straight.

EDIT2: Hmmm... Actually it seems that it was actually THE SON who forced her into having sex with him. Of course she had the chance to say no, but she gave in... Oh god...

World is DEFINITELY crazy today...

omega20 wrote: World is DEFINITELY crazy today...

It was crazy yesterday, too.  Probably will be tomorrow, too, but we can hope.

Who said Oedipus Rex isn't relevant to still teach?

.......well, that's original.

mmmmmmmm amerikaland and cheap broads

WB wrote: http://www.unfictional.com/aimee-louise-sword-did-not-rape-her-10-year-old-son

omega20 wrote: EDIT: Actually, I found another article (this) where she exposes her version of the story. It seems like the boy's adoptive family's social worker asked his permission to find her, because "he was getting unmanageable at home and they hoped his real mother might be able to set him straight." Well, it seems like no one told her that while sex may always be tempting, you must find other ways to set your own son straight.

Yeah, that's the same page I posted a few posts ago.

WB is a drunkard, take it easy on him. He probably hasn't readn an OP in years.

Hey, I'm no drunkard. I'm a drunk, theres a difference.

Yeah, everyone knows drunkards drink from tankards. Drunks, on the other hand, they'll drink from anything.

Actually, I first have to say that I am not a fan of what the mother did.
It needs to be seperated between the adoption and the sexual stuff. Don't get me wrong, those two thing are related to each other, but for the judgement the adaption stuff should be mostly ignored.
I think we should track down WHY sexual interactions within family members are forbidden. Maybe also because of the moral and church stuff, but mostly for the reason that conceived children will be most likely physically disabled. It must be said that the last point gets neutralized if they prevented (one could still argue that it is then not 100%ly save). So what's left? The moralic and churchly aspect. While I really don't like it it give me no right to punish her for that. At least from my ethic point of view, it might be very different in the view of the US laws.
Of course it is - at least for me - EXTREMLY different if they haven't prevented at all or not enough.