posted
You picked a pretty interesting comparison there, Baron. Bio parents:adoptive parents, POTUS:school-board member.
But anyway, you didn't call adoption 'extremely legitimate', to be precise. You called Angelina Jolie's case 'extremely legitimate. Other adoptions you referred to as being asterisked or having caveats, and you might want to take a look at the dictionary and see what most of the definitions of that word mean, by the way.
quote:I don't know where that idea comes from, other than a desire to feel persecuted.
Here's why: because you're going out of your way to make it very clear that on one side of the question, there are good, biological parents. Merely by making a distinction with those people on one side and everyone else on the other (however 'extremely legitimate' they may be), you're implying inferiority.
In my opinion, questions of biology are almost irrelevant when it comes to determining parenthood. What kind of parent am I if I just knock up a girl and run away, never seeing the child again? Well, hey, I did a lot! I donated my genes!
We're not talking legal issues here either, and I think that's clear too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: "Not real" is DEFINITELY inferior.
Your use of the word "real" to describe biological parents as distinguished from other parents is part of what implies inferior status to other parents. Add to that the asterisk, the caveats, the conservative and other words you use -- they all imply that adoptive parents have less stature as parents than biological parents.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holy crap, Rakeesh, did you even read my posts? I was going to try to correct you, but you have so many errors in every single sentence that I don't know where to start. If you did that on purpose, well done. Your maze of misinterpretation is as complex as Beethoven's Grand Fugue.
I'll continue this discussion when my attention isn't divided. Meantime, read my posts, try to understand what I said, and don't even bother trying to tell me what I implied, because you're not even close.
posted
Perhaps you are not carefully considering what you are saying, because your words and your explanation of your words bear little resemblance to one another.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
What are you basing this on? My experience is that they do it because they think they'll have a better life if the child is adopted.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
What are you basing this on? My experience is that they do it because they think they'll have a better life if the child is adopted.
Of the LDS girls that I know that put their children up for adoption, the idea has always been that the child deserves a stable family with a mother and father. Growing up, that was definitely the idea. If I had gotten pregnant before graduating from high school, I would have been expected to give the baby up for adoption so he/she could have a family that was ready and hungry for it.
That is so the mindset that I'm used that I was shocked to discover that only 1% of babies born to teenage mothers are placed for adoption and that giving the baby up for adoption is seen as "ducking responsibilities." It seems both the most responsible and the most generous action possible, where ideally five people are better off. The teenage parents can continuing preparing for their life rather than having responsiblity (and usually poverty and a lack of education) thrust on them, the baby gets to be raised by parents who are ready and longed for it, and the adoptive parents get a baby.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is so the mindset that I'm used that I was shocked to discover that only 1% of babies born to teenage mothers are placed for adoption and that giving the baby up for adoption is seen as "ducking responsibilities."
Growing up non-Mormon, I was equally surprised when I learned from my LDS friends that teens were encouraged to give up their children for adoption.
I think there is an argument to be made for keeping the child in many cases. It doesn't always (usually?) force people into poverty or prevent further education, it just makes those outcomes more likely. These girls, their boyfriends, and their parents, should consider all of the options and decide what is best for their situation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I was going to try to correct you, but you have so many errors in every single sentence that I don't know where to start. If you did that on purpose, well done. You're maze of misinterpretation is as complex as Beethoven's Grand Fugue.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Icarus, I've been looking for a post I thought was by you. Perhaps it was in the deleted thread and maybe I'm misremembering and it was someone else who posted.
Was it you who posted something about there being people out there who had more money than you and might be able to better care for your child than you but it was insulting to suggest you should therefore sign over your children to them?
Maybe it was in fact someone else.
I ask because although I would never claim that it is right to sign away your parental rights solely because some one who has more money or skills than you wants to adopt your child, I do think that many parents who put their children up for adoption do it because they perceive that their children will have a better life if adopted.
I also think that in many cases, that decision is a good decision, a responsible decision, a loving decision and a very unselfish decision.
I posted something vaguely like that. My point was not that it was wrong to give your children up for adoption, but that it was wrong to negatively judge someone for not giving their children up for adoption. The suggestion at the moment was that Sasha's father was being unreasonable. I don't think he is, and I would never judge him negatively for standing in the way of this adoption, regardless of the fact that Anne Kate can provide something for his child that he cannot. And so my point was that there is always someone who can provide for your child better than you can. In the case of really poor people, there are lots of people with a better financial ability to provide for their children. But that doesn't mean that if someone wealthy comes along and offers to do so, one is wrong for failing to take them up on it. The father is not being unreasonable here. It is unreasonable to judge him.
quote:I would hope that most parents who adopted children felt that way about their children's biological parents and did not feel like those parents who signed away their parental rights were necessarily dead beats who had abandoned their child.
My children's birthparents were a violent, drug abusing couple. The mother's early labor was triggered by a violent episode. The children were born at 28 weeks gestation with substantial developmental delays and substantial medical needs, and were immediately taken into DCF custody. They never spent an hour with their birthparents. Their birthparents, it should be noted, had the opportunity to regain custody by attending parenting lessons and committing to follow-up with DCF; they never made more than a token effort to do so. They never took any classes, and the birthmother visited the children in the foster home once. The girls lived for twenty months in a medical foster home and have lived with us ever since.
I do judge the birthparents negatively. They are deadbeats.
I would hope that in less extreme cases, adoptive parents are more charitable. It's not the same, but I have always kept the foster parents involved in the girls' lives. They even have taken to inviting us to their family reunions. (You get a lot of funny looks as the only white people in a black family reunion, let me tell you! ) I like to imagine that I would be the same way with birth parents under different circumstances, but I could not guarantee that it is true. At least with the foster parents there is no question of who the "real" parents are and who the "parents with caveat" are. I might be less likely to keep the birthparents in the picture if I thought that would lead to confusion on that score. But I hope I would at least be charitable in my estimation of them.
I agree that giving your child up for adoption can be a generous and responsible thing to do. I just don't agree that failing to give your child up for adoption is an ungenerous or irresponsible thing to do, under any circumstances.
-o-
I don't agree with Tatiana's actions. I do believe that her heart is in the right place. I don't trust myself to go on at length in this thread, though, on the merits or demerits of this plan, because I can't trust myself not to say things that are true but nevertheless hurtful. It might be worth it to say hurtful but true things if I thought that they would change Tatiana's intentions, but I don't believe they will, and so it just doesn't seem worth it. I have been pretty upfront about the fact that I don't think it's cool, but I have tried to restrain myself as much as possible.
-o-
You know, the girls share my last name, and have social security cards with my last name. They even have official birth certificates with my last name, listing my wife and me as their parents. It would seem to me that in the eyes of the State, at least, the "real" parents are my wife and I.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who thinks that adoptive parents of young children are not their "real" parents because they are not bio parents to the children does not subscribe to my definition of reality.
The official LDS policy on unwed pregnancies, as I understand it, is that the parents should be encouraged to marry if possible, to provide a two-parent, stable home. If that is not feasible or realistic or would result in an UNSTABLE marriage and home (such as when the mother and/or father are very young-- like, you know, 14, 15, sometimes even older, depending on the people involved), then adoption should be encouraged.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think threads should be able to be deleted by anyone but a moderator. I don't like the idea of someone else (besides a moderator) having the power to delete my posts. Maybe the OP of a thread should have the option of locking it instead of deleting it. That way no information is destroyed.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I don't think threads should be able to be deleted by anyone but a moderator. I don't like the idea of someone else (besides a moderator) having the power to delete my posts. Maybe the OP of a thread should have the option of locking it instead of deleting it. That way no information is destroyed.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a thread becomes hurtful or personally insulting, I think the OP is perfectly within his/her rights to delete it.
I'm not weighing in on whether or not that has anything to do with this particular thread deletion because I wasn't paying much attention whenever it was deleted.
posted
If I become hurtful and personally insulting to you right now in this thread, you don't have the ability to delete my words. The recourse you do have is whistling my posts and letting the moderator get involved. He can delete my words in this post here. Likewise, if a thread becomes insulting or hurtful, the OP can go to the moderator. Just because the programming of the board makes it possible for an OP to delete other people's words doesn't make it right. You can count me among those who think thread deleting sucks.
(Just to be clear, I'm not actually commenting on this specific case. I knew that Anne Kate was prone to thread deletion, so I didn't post anything I would particularly miss if she deleted my posts. I'm replying to you on the principle of the thing, because I disagree with you. As far as Tatiana's thread, I don't particularly care.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a thread becomes personally insulting then the offending posts should be deleted. I guess there always exceptions. If I made a thread called "Let's talk about how pH sucks" then I would hope that it would be deleted. I don't think a thread that contains legitimate discussion should be deleted.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is often a problem when trying to determine someones intent in posting something, particularily when that person says "that's not what I meant".
Just sayin'.....
"Real, biological parents " seems, at least to me, to be two different characteristics of what was in question. It could be that Baron meant to imply that adoptive parents aren't real parents....or not.
Asking him to clarify would probably have gotten a more constructive answer from him rather than assuming he meant such a thing.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But then the question becomes, what constitutes legitimate discussion? I mean, one could argue that certain parts of this thread (though CERTAINLY not anywhere near the majority), though very delicately worded, could be hurtful to Tatiana.
I also think that the time between when the offended individual whistles and when the moderator can actually make a decision about the posts can still be an extremely harmful period.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I will note that everyone here who has criticized Anne Kate for claiming to be Sasha's mother, has biological children.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: There is often a problem when trying to determine someones intent in posting something, particularily when that person says "that's not what I meant".
Just sayin'.....
"Real, biological parents " seems, at least to me, to be two different characteristics of what was in question. It could be that Baron meant to imply that adoptive parents aren't real parents....or not.
Asking him to clarify would probably have gotten a more constructive answer from him rather than assuming he meant such a thing.
He didn't "imply" that adoptive parents aren't real parents. He stated it. Flat out.
Kwea, did you read his posts, or just the phrase? He said adoptive parents are only considered real with an asterisk or a caveat, and that nobody would consider Angeline Jolie the "real mother" of the children she has adopted. It seemed to me that he has clarified his thoughts pretty thoroughly.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a thread becomes hurtful or personally insulting, I think the OP is perfectly within his/her rights to delete it.
Why? They're within their powers to delete the thread, that's certainly true. But why are they within their rights? Just because their feelings were hurt?
If you're posting on a serious issue, why should you somehow have this right not to be hurt by contrary opinions? Is that what Hatrack is? A great big back-patting discussion board?
I'm not surprised you support thread deletion, though. If memory serves, at least once you decided you didn't like what you were hearing and decided to delete your words along with everyone else's.
You've got the ability to kill a discussion you started once it goes against you, that's not the same as having the right. Or do you think you should have the right to delete anyone's words once they become too critical?
Anne Kate should not have gotten, nor should she have expected, uniformly positive reactions to the proposals she was making. Hatrack is not a support group, and even in a support group you cannot rely on automatic support.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a thread becomes hurtful or personally insulting, I think the OP is perfectly within his/her rights to delete it.
Why? They're within their powers to delete the thread, that's certainly true. But why are they within their rights? Just because their feelings were hurt?
If you're posting on a serious issue, why should you somehow have this right not to be hurt by contrary opinions? Is that what Hatrack is? A great big back-patting discussion board?
I'm not surprised you support thread deletion, though. If memory serves, at least once you decided you didn't like what you were hearing and decided to delete your words along with everyone else's.
You've got the ability to kill a discussion you started once it goes against you, that's not the same as having the right. Or do you think you should have the right to delete anyone's words once they become too critical?
Anne Kate should not have gotten, nor should she have expected, uniformly positive reactions to the proposals she was making. Hatrack is not a support group, and even in a support group you cannot rely on automatic support.
Rakeesh, I know you have a personal issue with me. I don't really know why, but I know you're not the only one. And if you're going to bring up threads I deleted, they were completely unproductive and had degenerated into personal attacks that were causing me severe distress and affecting my ability to function in the real world. I have OCD; words hurt me a LOT, and as long as I'm still capable of reading them, I will continue to do so. I also can't keep myself from pulling pieces of skin from my scalp. I didn't mention any of this at the time because I thought it would just give more ammunition to the people who already seemed to be taking far too much pleasure in tearing me down. I'm not saying Hatrack should be a support group, but I don't think it should be allowed to degenerate into a schoolyard bully session, either.
Edit: Again, I'm not saying that Tatiana should or shouldn't have deleted the thread. From what I saw, she wasn't getting universal support, but there weren't any personal attacks against her, either. Not in THAT thread, at least. In this one...I can't say that this thread hasn't gotten a little too insulting to her, in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:Maybe the OP of a thread should have the option of locking it instead of deleting it. That way no information is destroyed.
I think this is worth thinking about and makes a great compromise between those who feel some ownership of their threads and those who feel that the OP has no more right to them than anyone else.
I understand the latter group's position but belong to the former, for the record.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, honey, I mean this gently. I like you, so please understand that I mean this gently.
But, think about it. What would you do if this thread turned hurtful? You couldn't delete it, because you didn't start it. You would need to find some other way of coping with it. Right? Ignoring it, asking the moderator for help and so forth. The OP has those same options.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You've got the ability to kill a discussion you started once it goes against you, that's not the same as having the right.
In this case it kind of is. It's a right granted to the original poster by the software and, thereby, implicitly by the owners in their continued use of the software as currently configured. For whatever reason, it has not been worth it to the Cards or any of the janitors to take whatever steps would be necessary to prevent thread deletion. Nor, as far as I know, has thread deletion been made a no-no in the terms of service.
So I think yes, original posters *do* have the right to delete their threads... I think the phrase you're looking for, Rakeesh, is "to have a right to do something is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." (GKC, of course)
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how the availability of those options to people who didn't start threads should mean that the OP shouldn't have the ability to delete the thread if it turns hurtful. And as I said before, I really don't know if that's what happened in Tatiana's case or not. I know she's had her feelings hurt before in threads related to Sasha (I think there was one about her helping him talk to his girlfriend on the phone), so I wouldn't find it surprising if she was a little vulnerable on the subject from the beginning. But I don't know, and I haven't been able to get ahold of her since this thread was started.
posted
Just because the software doesn't prevent me from doing something doesn't make it a right of mine.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: For whatever reason, it has not been worth it to the Cards or any of the janitors to take whatever steps would be necessary to prevent thread deletion.
It's a single checkbox.
I'm going to ask this again. What EARTHLY good is having this same argument yet AGAIN supposed to accomplish?
pH, do you think we don't all know how you feel about this? Rakeesh, I know you feel it's your duty to rehash old arguments, but please let this one go! Kate, do you really think you are going to change pH's mind or anyone else's?
While the locking a thread notion is interesting, I am fairly certain it is not doable. Deleting posts (and therefore threads) is something that can be allowed (or not, as the board admin decides); locking threads is only a power that admins and moderators have. Regardless, despite repeated and vicious argument on this topic, the PTB have chosen to stick with the status quo.
The last time this argument was rehashed, people left Hatrack over the venom. Personally, I came close.
CAN WE PLEASE DROP IT?!?
Thank you for your consideration. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I know you feel it's your duty to rehash old arguments, but please let this one go!
Sometimes that mood does strike me, yes. This isn't one of those times, though, mostly because my interest in this topic (and things stemming from it) is almost gone. *shrug*
I am a little annoyed, though, at your characterization of me when I didn't bring the issue up here, and my response to a subject someone else brought up was pretty mild.
You may now continue your refereeing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: There is often a problem when trying to determine someones intent in posting something, particularily when that person says "that's not what I meant".
Just sayin'.....
"Real, biological parents " seems, at least to me, to be two different characteristics of what was in question. It could be that Baron meant to imply that adoptive parents aren't real parents....or not.
Asking him to clarify would probably have gotten a more constructive answer from him rather than assuming he meant such a thing.
He didn't "imply" that adoptive parents aren't real parents. He stated it. Flat out.
Kwea, did you read his posts, or just the phrase? He said adoptive parents are only considered real with an asterisk or a caveat, and that nobody would consider Angeline Jolie the "real mother" of the children she has adopted. It seemed to me that he has clarified his thoughts pretty thoroughly.
And his second post mentioned 2 categories of "real" parents...biological, and those who raised and cared for the child from a young age.
It seemed to me at that point he had further clarified what he was saying.
Mind you, I am not saying a I agree, even. I just see this sort of thing a lot, where people assume someone meant one thing because of the "obvious" implications of what tehy said, or how they said it.
I first commented on this reading just the comment as quoted. I went back, and I have to say I disagree with his first post....but because of the second I would have asked him what he meant rather than assuming the worst.
I am also not personally invested the way you would are...but I will say this...
When I spend time with you and your family, Icarus, I never even remember that you adopted Mango and Banana, because there is no doubt that you and Cor are their parents. With no asterisk at all....which is one of the reasons JenniK and I like hanging not just with you and Cor, but with your whole family. I love seeing families that work, and there is never any doubt about the love we see between you and your kids.
As it should be.
So....that should clarify MY position about all of that, I would think. I don't consider a childs biological parents to be the only ones with a right to the words Mother adn Father. Step-parents, adoptive parents, family who raises the child....any of them who do this could have a claim to them.
Nor do I really care what anyone else thinks about it.....if I feel it is warranted, and the child feels the same, then what anyone else thinks is a moot point, IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I should have known better than to try to deal with that while I was at work. I have a few minutes now before I have to go to sleep, so I'll try to make this post as error-free as possible.
People sure do love to be offended, eh? Are people really trying to insist that I meant something different than I really did mean by my previous comments? If I weren't here, it might be an interesting academic discussion. But I am here, I know what I wrote, I know what I meant by what I wrote, and I know what I believe. If you want to ask me about any of those things, I'm here and I'd be glad to try to clear up any misunderstandings. But don't try to convince me that you know the answers to these questions better than I do. You sound like Ron Lambert trying to convince a bunch of returned missionaries that they really worship the Lords of Kobol, but they just don't know it. It's silly.
I have known politically correct people who love to set traps like this for people. They choose innocuous words and phrases such as “well-spoken” and “you people,” turn them into secret codes, then wait for well-meaning people to use them in any context. As soon as that happens, you're caught and there’s no point trying to pretend you’re not an evil, closed-minded bigot. It’s a clever trick. I, unfortunately, don’t know all the hidden code words. If “real” is one of them, well, I guess you caught me. But I don’t play the word game and I’m not going to respond to your semantic accusations.
If you enjoy scanning my posts like you’re reading the Constitution, trying to determine the intent of the framers, have a good time. But the framer is among you, and if you’re going to pretend you have more insight into what those posts meant than I did, it’s going to be a pretty hard sell.
I don’t mind clearing up honest misunderstandings that may have resulted from my choice of words. But if you’re going to go into the debate insisting that I meant something that I obviously did not, and trying to trick me into admitting that I hate you, that’s a game you can play solo.
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: But even in those cases, parental titles are used very conservatively, and with an asterisk. For example, no one is going to mistake Angelina Jolie for her childrens' "real mother."
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: However, even in such an extremely legitimate case, when someone raises a child that is not their direct genetic offspring, the word "Mother" is still going to be used with an unspoken caveat.
Yup. You ran afoul of the secret liberal code. When you said adoptive parents weren't real parents, it was uncharitable of me to assume you meant that adoptive parents aren't real parents. How could you know that to me, "real" was a secret buzzword meaning "real," and "caveat" was a secret buzzword meaning "caveat," and "asterisk" was a secret buzzword meaning "asterisk"?! I mean, really, it's so crazy how your words have been spun to mean something so different! I should have asked you what "real," "caveat," and "asterisk" meant in those contexts!
Hey, so that I don't make this mistake again, could you tell me what "is" means to you?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more thing. This isn't a response to the previous post, but I've got one more question for you before I bid farewell to this ridiculous line of inquiry:
Let's take an SAT-type reading comprehension test, and see how you fare. Read the following sentences and respond to the question:
"When shooting the scene set in the filthiest toilet in Scotland for the movie Trainspotting, the producers did not use real feces to coat the walls of the stall. Rather, they found that substituting chocolate made the shoot much more pleasant."
After reading that paragraph, would you conclude that:
The producers of Trainspotting found a substitute that served their purposes better than the original article.
Chocolate is worse than feces.
(forewarning: If you pick #2, be especially careful with any boxes of candy you receive this Valentine's day.)
That's it for me. I'm off to work. Hope there's enough fuel in my previous posts to power a wonderfully cathartic pity-party.
(And if any parents who didn't adopt your children want to join in, feel free to infer that I just compared you to feces. Now it's fun for everyone.)
I dunno why Bonds is being such a jerk over this. I mean, it's not like putting an asterisk on his home run ball in any way implies that it's, you know, illegitimate or inferior. It's just a different kind of home run record, that's all. Sheesh, the noive of the guy!
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, geeze, man, just leave the discussion with a tissue or stay in it already! Man! Quit your whining, dude, whichever choice you make!
The fact is, according to you, you screwed up. You chose your words badly. Your little SAT example is pretty stupid, too.
Instead of just admitting that you decided to get all defensive and hostile. So, go to work, and hopefully enjoy all the self-righteous pitying your posts are obviously designed to generate. For you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I agree that giving your child up for adoption can be a generous and responsible thing to do. I just don't agree that failing to give your child up for adoption is an ungenerous or irresponsible thing to do, under any circumstances.
Thank you for your very thoughtful response that I've only strip quoted. I understand where you are coming from and mostly agree with you.
I do think that there are cases where refusing to give up a child for adoption is selfish or irresponsible. In some places, children who come abuse homes (similar to your children) can't be legally adopted without the consent of the biological parents no matter how severe the neglect or abuse. If the biological parents refuse, the kids end up in permanent foster care, sometimes being shuttled from one family to another until they are adults. I do think that such parents are being selfish and irresponsible.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Rabbit's last post. While I think that giving up a child for adoption when you can't provide two parents and stability for it is very sweet and unselfish, I do not think keeping a child is selfish.
In Rabbit's scenario above, neither is happening. The kid is neither available for adoption nor being cared for by his parent(s). That's pretty crappy.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble is, suggesting that some parents are being selfish and irresponsible by not giving up children for adoption to avoid raising them in poverty...
Well, that brings up some awkward questions. It begs the question, "Well then is it selfish for the poor to have children at all?" It bears something in common with a suggestion I've often hear from pro-choicers, for example, that abortion should be kept legal to help 'save' children of poor parents from growing up in poverty.
Please note I'm not saying it's the same thing, I'm saying there's something in common.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In some places, children who come abuse homes (similar to your children) can't be legally adopted without the consent of the biological parents no matter how severe the neglect or abuse. If the biological parents refuse, the kids end up in permanent foster care, sometimes being shuttled from one family to another until they are adults. I do think that such parents are being selfish and irresponsible.
I'm not familiar with such a place. Is that something that happens in this country, or elsewhere? I would agree that society needs to have the power to step in to protect children who are not safe with their parents.
EDIT TO ADD: But I think it really needs to be up to society, in the guise of the state, to step in there. if such parents don't decide on their own to give up their rights.
posted
I am fairly certain that under some circumstances, a a parental right can be severed by the state, without requiring the original parents to sign it away.
In my own case, actually. After my mom remarried, my step-father wanted to adopt us but my birth father was nowhere to be found and couldn't be reached to sign away the rights. If what you're saying is true, Rabbit, I should never have been adopted, but I was. Got the birth certificate to prove it.
The courts can intervene and sever parental rights, it doesn't require both parents signing them away all the time.
Like Icarus, I'm curious where the courts are incapable of doing that.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I am fairly certain that under some circumstances, a a parental right can be severed by the state, without requiring the original parents to sign it away
Well certainly they can do it (i.e., permanently sever parental rights against their will) in Florida. I'm willing to grant that the law may be different elsewhere. I'm certainly curious to know where, though.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) I like to imagine that I would be the same way with birth parents under different circumstances, but I could not guarantee that it is true. At least with the foster parents there is no question of who the "real" parents are and who the "parents with caveat" are. I might be less likely to keep the birthparents in the picture if I thought that would lead to confusion on that score. But I hope I would at least be charitable in my estimation of them. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
] ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I don't consider a childs biological parents to be the only ones with a right to the words Mother adn Father. Step-parents, adoptive parents, family who raises the child....any of them who do this could have a claim to them.
