Has the law swung too much in favor of protecting children?

I was actually thinking of a particular case where a child suddenly screamed out in a supermarket, "This is not my mommy!"

Except it was.

Turns out he had some chemical imbalances and was allergic to just about everything, which made him incredibly hyperactive and led to that incident.

 

Can you imagine a system that took every child and anonymous caller at their word?

Teenagers are smart and manipulative people, and if the system were set up for presumed guilt, it would be a disaster.

 

Several questions. Why (notice I am not asking 'are') children more important than adults? I agree that they are, but I want to hear your reason(s).

Innumerable reasons:

1. Children do not have the mental, emotional and physical independence of adults; they, therefore, are more worthy of protection.

2. Children, generally, are 'innocent' - there is an inherent good nature in most children, that, unless it is corrupted, has been noticed and documented for hundreds of years.

3. Children are our future; the present ruling generation is in a period of transition from 'existing' to 'defunct' - therefore, the children, who are the future hopes of society, must be placed first.

4. Children are more vulnerable. They cannot defend, physically, mentally or emotionally, themselves as well as adults.

5. Children are children, and it is in the nature of most adults to want to protect and conserve them. I have always felt that I would gladly give my life to save a childs, and though that has never, and probably will never, be called upon, so it will go untested, I feel that were that had that kind of decision to be made, I would favour a childs life over my own.

- Scarlet.