Qualified to adopt?

[Dis]

Is it right to deny someone the ability to adopt a child (and deny that child a stable and loving home) simply because the applicant is single, and for no other reason?

Why, or why not?

 

[Burp]

Excellent post. We'll see some fireworks with this one!

I can't find any stats new than this but, in 2001, 32% of adoptions were by single women.

I think if there is a loving home available, then that home should be considered.

 

[random3434]

I think anyone that can provide a loving, stable home to a child should be able to adopt.

I know many single ladies (I met them at the YMCA) that went to China to adopt baby girls.


There are also a lot of older children in the foster care system that would love a loving mom to adopt them.

 

[Dis]

So it is Political Chic that's just absolutely fucking crackers, and the rest of the world IS normal.

Whew.

(Sorry... I'm *really* pissed off. I know SO many single (unmarried) parents that are so much better off where they're at, and to have it be said that someone who's single shouldn't be allowed to parent...)

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

I'm sorry that the initial response to your thread was disappointing. I hope my reply will provide the fireworks you were hoping for.

Is it right to deny someone the ability to adopt a child (and deny that child a stable and loving home) simply because the applicant is single, and for no other reason?

Yes.

Because a single parent home is not a stable home. A single parent will, in the majority of cases, still be looking for a mate. This means there will be a progression of different candidates popping in and out of the child's life during their formative years-- above and beyond the obvious fact that the child will be missing one parent or the other. And, of course, if a child is abused, statistically that abuse is most likely to occur at the hands of their mother's boyfriend. Second most likely? Stepfather. (I'm not being sexist. Women simply abuse children less frequently.)

Not to mention, a single-parent home is less financially stable than a two-parent home, whether the latter is single or dual income. A parent who must support both a career and a young child is going to end up neglecting one or the other. At least, in dual-income families, there are two adults present, even if they're not available full-time.

Children deserve to have parents. While the reality of abandonment and divorce in our society-- which sorely needs corrected-- means that this isn't always possible, it would still benefit our society to discourage, by every means possible, people deliberately choosing single parenthood.

 

[Luissa]

I'm sorry that the initial response to your thread was disappointing. I hope my reply will provide the fireworks you were hoping for.

Is it right to deny someone the ability to adopt a child (and deny that child a stable and loving home) simply because the applicant is single, and for no other reason?

Yes.

Because a single parent home is not a stable home. A single parent will, in the majority of cases, still be looking for a mate. This means there will be a progression of different candidates popping in and out of the child's life during their formative years-- above and beyond the obvious fact that the child will be missing one parent or the other. And, of course, if a child is abused, statistically that abuse is most likely to occur at the hands of their mother's boyfriend. Second most likely? Stepfather. (I'm not being sexist. Women simply abuse children less frequently.)

Not to mention, a single-parent home is less financially stable than a two-parent home, whether the latter is single or dual income. A parent who must support both a career and a young child is going to end up neglecting one or the other. At least, in dual-income families, there are two adults present, even if they're not available full-time.

Children deserve to have parents. While the reality of abandonment and divorce in our society-- which sorely needs corrected-- means that this isn't always possible, it would still benefit our society to discourage, by every means possible, people deliberately choosing single parenthood.

Children deserve to have a stable home life no matter the if there is two or one parent. If the person is stable and can afford to raise the child they should be allowed to adopt. There are too many kids in foster homes not getting the care they need.
My mom was married when she adopted my two brother's and her husband ended up being a cheating bastard and married a crazy lady after my mother and he never talks to my brothers. My father now is more like their father, with one of my brother's naming one of his children after him. A family isn't always what they say is a "normal" family and having two parents isn't always the right way.
Plus you obviously don't hold women very highly!

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

Children deserve to have a stable home life no matter the if there is two or one parent.

Didn't bother to read the whole post, did you?

Plus you obviously don't hold women very highly!

I would love to hear how you have come to this conclusion.

 

[xotoxi]

Is it right to deny someone the ability to adopt a child (and deny that child a stable and loving home) simply because the applicant is single, and for no other reason?

Why, or why not?

It is appropriate to deny a single person the ability to adopt because there is no evidence that that they aren't gay.

And we don't want any kids corrupted and brainwashed by a gay, do we?



(Now I will remove my tongue from my cheek.)

 

[random3434]

Did Political Chick's Husband join the USMB?

 

[Luissa]

Children deserve to have a stable home life no matter the if there is two or one parent.

Didn't bother to read the whole post, did you?

Plus you obviously don't hold women very highly!

I would love to hear how you have come to this conclusion.

actually I did, you claimed a single parent cannot provide a stable home life. And you pretty much said women can't pick the right men and they will have a line of men coming in and out of their life. You are putting people into a box!

 

[Anguille]

it would still benefit our society to discourage, by every means possible, people deliberately choosing single parenthood.

So singles who want to share their home with a needy child should enter into a marriage of convenience? Like a kid isn't going to pick up on that and grow up with a warped view of what marriage is.

 

[Anguille]

I know many single ladies (I met them at the YMCA) that went to China to adopt baby girls.


There are also a lot of older children in the foster care system that would love a loving mom to adopt them.

I have two friends who each did one of the above. One got married when her daughter was about 5 and the other's boyfriend moved in when her daughter grew up and moved out. Both are very glad they adopted and so are their kids.

 

[KittenKoder]

It should be based on financial and emotional stability only ... nothing else should matter.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

And you pretty much said women can't pick the right men and they will have a line of men coming in and out of their life. You are putting people into a box!

You married? If you are, how many guys did you date (on a regular basis) before you found one worth marrying?

That's not a slam against women, that's an acknowledgment of how courting works in our society.

So singles who want to share their home with a needy child should enter into a marriage of convenience? Like a kid isn't going to pick up on that and grow up with a warped view of what marriage is.

Somehow I think you've missed the point. Singles who want to share their home with a needy child should reconsider their desire to raise children without a mate. Humans are not supposed to raise their offspring alone. There is a reason that every single culture on the planet recognizes some form of marriage.

And two people who can make a "marriage of convenience" work and last long enough to raise children to adulthood obviously have a much better grasp of what marriage is and should be than two people who get married because they're "in love" and divorce after a handful of years.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

It should be based on financial and emotional stability only ... nothing else should matter.

And it just so happens that marriage is a very powerful contributor to both.

 

[Anguille]

And two people who can make a "marriage of convenience" work and last long enough to raise children to adulthood obviously have a much better grasp of what marriage is

That's sad. Are you married to Cecilie by any chance?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is it right to deny someone the ability to adopt a child (and deny that child a stable and loving home) simply because the applicant is single, and for no other reason?

Why, or why not?

Ah, time for another teaching moment for DISjointed.

You see, once you have given the parameters as "a stable and loving home," there is no reason for the debate. You have committed the logical fallacy known as "Begging the Question," and based on your limited knowledge in so many areas, I have provided a defintion. Have someone read it to you:

"Begging the question (or petitio principii) is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises. Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando or circular reasoning. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book Prior Analytics."

And to review, the original thread on which I was forced to administer the original beating was based on a very different premise, as follows:

A judge was asked to allow an unwed young lady to harvest sperm from her deceased lover so as to be impregnated with same.
My point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions, and you are now trying to address the weakness in your original rant by adding "a stable and loving home."

The "a stable and loving home" aspect was not in evidence in your original argument, you know, the one that caused you to scream, curse, and emit spittle.

Look at the bright side: you learn so much from my posts.

 

[Anguille]

Could a single brother and a single sister raise a child to the satisfaction of those who would deny a good home to a needy child?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So it is Political Chic that's just absolutely fucking crackers, and the rest of the world IS normal.

Whew.

(Sorry... I'm *really* pissed off. I know SO many single (unmarried) parents that are so much better off where they're at, and to have it be said that someone who's single shouldn't be allowed to parent...)

You actually started a thread to beg for support????

Oh, my, DISpute, I didn't realize that you were so weak and fragile that you needed a thread asking others to support you, or, no doubt, you would have collapsed in DISpair.

What a sad sack, unable to stand alone with naught but your principles.

 

[Burp]

I'm sorry that the initial response to your thread was disappointing. I hope my reply will provide the fireworks you were hoping for.

Is it right to deny someone the ability to adopt a child (and deny that child a stable and loving home) simply because the applicant is single, and for no other reason?

Yes.

Because a single parent home is not a stable home. A single parent will, in the majority of cases, still be looking for a mate. This means there will be a progression of different candidates popping in and out of the child's life during their formative years-- above and beyond the obvious fact that the child will be missing one parent or the other. And, of course, if a child is abused, statistically that abuse is most likely to occur at the hands of their mother's boyfriend. Second most likely? Stepfather. (I'm not being sexist. Women simply abuse children less frequently.)

Not to mention, a single-parent home is less financially stable than a two-parent home, whether the latter is single or dual income. A parent who must support both a career and a young child is going to end up neglecting one or the other. At least, in dual-income families, there are two adults present, even if they're not available full-time.

Children deserve to have parents. While the reality of abandonment and divorce in our society-- which sorely needs corrected-- means that this isn't always possible, it would still benefit our society to discourage, by every means possible, people deliberately choosing single parenthood.

When one of the parents die and the kids are not adults (over 18), what happens then?

Does the state come in and take the children away and find a two-parent home for them?