Gay adoption

[Utah]

That is an excellent question.

There are very few women who are adamant about not wanting to keep their child. Most place for adoption because they feel tremendous pressure to do so or they feel that they dont have the means to raise the child. In essence, they would easily keep the child if they had the emotional and financial support needed. They place because they are told that a young girl cant raise a child and they are told about some wonderful two parent family waiting to raise the child. The girl is never told that the child will likely hurt greatly over the loss of the child and that she will hurt tremendously for the rest of her life.

It is not either adoption or abortion. These women should be given the support so they can raise their children.

If a women was given the support, told the truth, and she understood the reality of her situation and she still wanted to place the child then I certainly think adoption is a better than abortion. However, I know many adoptees who say that they would rather have been aborted than to be taken from their mothers.

[InchoateHand]

Not to be snide, but your alternative requires a social welfare system far outstripping the current meagre American effort. By-the-way, I fully agree with you, but you are going to have to raise/re-distribute taxes to provide the means you speak of, because they are not realistic right now.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I know many adoptees who say that they would rather have been aborted than to be taken from their mothers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow what an incredibly dismal view of life they must have.

What ever happened to the concept of the salmon swimming upstream to spawn against the odds and all that? Isn't that in our natures? Seems so many humans succumb to depression and/or just give up way too easily. Just my take FWIW. The creative spark of life which brought us into being is not very well represented or consciously valued by many humans it does seem.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
I know many adoptees who say that they would rather have been aborted than to be taken from their mothers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be kidding?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be snide, but your alternative requires a social welfare system far outstripping the current meagre American effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
The best solution is to simply prevent unwanted pregancies. Once a woman gets pregrant and she doesnt want to then there are only bad options left. Can you imagine what would happen if all the money and energy poured in the abortion debate was poured into preventing pregnancies. Everyone would win.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow what an incredibly dismal view of life they must have.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is more than just their view of life. They have been permenantly damaged. You can suffer damage as a child to which you simply cannot fully recover. imho.

These are not neccessarily people who are losers who are looking to blame others for their lot in life. I know some highly successful people that feel this way.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there is a severe shortage of parents willing to adopt children.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to fly in the face of what Utah is stating i.e. that adoption is basically a means to exploit the poor and defenseless. If there are an abundance of children who've had their birth parents removed one way or the other and thus require adoptive parents, then how could the adoption industry be exploiting these children? My guess is that most of the children who've had their birth parents removed from them in one way or another would be considered poor.

[ QUOTE ]
There are a ton of children removed from their home outside infancy. These children have a next to zero chance of being adopted. People want a baby, not a four year old, and they are willing to throw down 30K to get it from China rather than the town one over.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically the way I understand the situation i.e. that prospective adoptive parents want infants rather than toddlers or older.

[ QUOTE ]
I watched a close friend and co-worker go through the nightmare scenario of working with the state--it took 18 months before they got the kid, and another two years before they had unambiguous legal custody over it. At any point in that process a judge could have returned the child to the very much still living (though woefully negligent) biological mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is basically what I've observed. My observation is that the Courts are vigilant in protecting the natural rights of parents to raise their children and its a long and expensive process to remove custody from birth parents when those parents don't want custody taken away. Yet there is an abundance of children that are removed from their birth parents nonetheless if what you're stating is true. If there's an abundance of toddlers and above who need adoptive parents wouldn't this indicate that there are lots of children that would benefit from adoption at a much earlier age?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there is a severe shortage of parents willing to adopt children.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is simply not true. There is an overabundance of parents wanting to adopt healthy white babies. You couldnt produce enough healthy white babies to fill the need out there.

I think it is important to seperate traditional children adoption from foster care type adoptions. There is a huge shortage of parents willing to adopt such kids. I certainly think that for those children with zero chance of a healthy relationship with their natural parents than I am comfortable with adoptions in those cases. However, it shouldnt be assumed that all these parents need to do is provide a loving environment and these children will be fine. The reality is that these children are often already severely damaged and regardless of the circumstance they will suffer great trauma at the loss of their natural parents. I know a wonderful mom who adopted an older child. The boys natural father is in prison and will be for 20 more years. She still keeps the child in contact with the father because as she put it, "there are simply some things that I cant give the child that the birthparents can".

[ QUOTE ]
I watched a close friend and co-worker go through the nightmare scenario of working with the state--it took 18 months before they got the kid

[/ QUOTE ]
Respectfully, that wasnt a fight that your friend should have been involved with. It is an issue for the state. I have a huge problem with private parties attempting to terminate the rights of other parents because it taints the process. This doesnt mean that awful parents shouldnt lose their kids. It just means that there should be two stages. 1) State (alone) determines fitness to parents 2)Private party proves fitness to parent only after step one is complete.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of a friend just paid $20K to adopt a baby from China--and they are middle class whites in New England suburbia. It was a long and exhausting process and finally they got selected as the adpotive parents-to-be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Respectfully, they bought themselves a baby.

The whole going to china thing to get a baby is so corrupt and unhealthy. Parents go to China because they can get a baby quickly and because they dont have to worry about birthparent rights. These children are especially Fvcked because these adopting parents think they are rescuing this child and they dont realize that the child will likely miss their natural parents terribly. Therefore, the child will be forced to surpress their feelings probably their whole lives.

[thatpfunk]

This is one of the most absurd answers I have ever read in the politics forum.

Of course it should be legal. There is no logical and rational argument against it.