Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
This from the person that stated she would *never* allow a *single* woman to become an adoptive parent, regardless of the "loving aspect"? LMAO. Pul-ease, woman. STFU. Really. Just shut the fuck up.
A single woman is not fit to parent, according to you. THAT is why this thread was created.
When one of the parents die and the kids are not adults (over 18), what happens then?
When one of the parents die and the kids are not adults (over 18), what happens then?
Then the surviving parent, like the custodial parent after a divorce, hopefully does the best they can. Some situations simply can't be helped, and I'm not going to suggest that we should punish people for making the best of a bad situation.
But when the situation can be prevented, as in the case of single would-be parents attempting to adopt or seek fertility treatments, I think that the State has a compelling interested in preventing it.
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.
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?
I'm sorry that the initial response to your thread was disappointing. I hope my reply will provide the fireworks you were hoping for.
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?
No, I am raising my boys on my own.
Now, thousands of children in the United States and other countries are living with single men and women who have chosen to become parents and who have been given the opportunity to provide a loving permanent home for a child. In the last 20 years there has been a steady, sizable increase in the number of single parent adoptions-some people feel that it is the fastest growing trend in the adoption field. Approximately 25 percent of the adoptions of children with special needs are by single men and women,1 and it is estimated that about 5 percent of all other adoptions are by single people. The outlook for single parent adoption is encouraging as it becomes more widely accepted.
Adoption becomes a viable option for single women who feel that having a child out-of-wedlock is unacceptable or who find that they are infertile.
Some men and women feel that they can provide a better life for the children living in institutions or foster care or in countries that cannot provide them with the basic necessities. One teacher said, "Because I continually saw children in my special education classes who lived in institutions or went from foster home to foster home, I decided that even as a single parent I could do more for a child.
Why Is Single Parent Adoption Becoming More Prevalent?
A number of factors have encouraged the acceptance of single parent families. Perhaps most is the growing number of one-parent households due to divorce and to unmarried women having and keeping their children. A recent New York Times article reported that more than half of the Nation's 9.8 million African-American children under 18 years of age, nearly one-third of the 7 million Hispanic children, and one-fifth of the Nation's 51.1 million Caucasian children live with a single parent.4 While women are the primary caregivers for most of these children, there are also one million single fathers in this country.5 With so many children living in this type of home environment, adoption agencies have been more willing to consider unmarried men and women as prospective adopters.
Another factor is that single adoptive parents have proven to be very successful in encouraging their own acceptance. The latest research indicates that children raised in single adoptive parent families compare favorably with other adopted children and show a healthy involvement with friends and family as well as in the activities of their age group. It has been shown that it is the instability of broken homes, rather than the absence of a parent, that causes difficulty for a child. In 1985, an 8- year longitudinal study of 22 single adoptive parents reported that the child care provided by the parents had been consistent and of high quality. The researchers stated that, "The single parents of this study lead busy lives and seem to manage the demands of jobs, home, and parenting with a sure touch."
Others will erroneously point to and cite statistics linking single motherhood to a variety of potential social ills for their child. To pursue the consideration and possibility of adoption
Despite the greater acceptance of single parent adoption, the traditional view of parenting, that a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and development, still exists. Mental health experts say that the "ideal" is to place a child in a two-parent home with a mother and father who are compatible and loving. However, there are many children for whom this "ideal" is not possible and many single people who feel that such bias is unfair.
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?
No, I am raising my boys on my own.
Sorry for your loss auditor.
>>>
Single Parent Adoption -
Others will erroneously point to and cite statistics linking single motherhood to a variety of potential social ills for their child. To pursue the consideration and possibility of adoption
Despite the greater acceptance of single parent adoption, the traditional view of parenting, that a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and development, still exists. Mental health experts say that the "ideal" is to place a child in a two-parent home with a mother and father who are compatible and loving. However, there are many children for whom this "ideal" is not possible and many single people who feel that such bias is unfair.
I always appreciate different views when supported, as you have, with content rather than vile language and "STFU" suggestions. It, of course, indicates a higher level of upbringing and education.
So what do you suggest the STATE do to prevent a loving mother or father from having/adopting a child?
So, is the child better off with a single parent or in foster care?
I always appreciate different views when supported, as you have, with content rather than vile language and "STFU" suggestions. It, of course, indicates a higher level of upbringing and education.
Really, is that why you've made up little pet names for DIS?
And I didn't post it for you, jackass, I posted it for all the single parents who you've insulted with your phony superiority ACT.
DISmissed!
That's just too simple. Common sense does not always apply.I think The State would need to approve these adoptions on a case by case basis.
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.
This from the person that stated she would *never* allow a *single* woman to become an adoptive parent, regardless of the "loving aspect"? LMAO. Pul-ease, woman. STFU. Really. Just shut the fuck up.
A single woman is not fit to parent, according to you. THAT is why this thread was created.
Didn't I give you enough of a spanking last time?
When are the selfish "it's all about me" frumps, you know, like you, going to learn tht an adult has the ability to exert some control over their environment, and their life, and an infant does not.
That is why an adult should make decisions that enhance the possibilities of a happy, successful life for the helpless, 'storm tossed' child that is placed in their care. Clearly, your neediness doesn't allow you to see the difference.
And as for "STFU", thanks for exposing the inability to deal with opposing ideas and concepts, and proving what I have been saying about your ilk.
Now, here is another learning moment for you:
"The "marketplace of ideas" is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The "marketplace of ideas" belief holds that the truth or the best policy arises out of the competition of widely various ideas in free, transparent public discourse, an important part of liberal democracy."
So, how does stack up with "STFU"?
Clearly, your marketplace of ideas is the lavatory.
Here is the operative quote that separates us:
"To be a mother, you and another adult, committed partner (i.e. spouse) have the interest, intent, ability, and means to make the necessary sacrifices of time, attention, and resources to give the child the nurturing, security, support, love and education he or she needs! Procreation has little to do with your needs; it has everything to do with the child's needs."
You, foul-mouthed, self-centered shrew of limited intellectual ability, can crawl back into, or under, your midden.
This from the person that stated she would *never* allow a *single* woman to become an adoptive parent, regardless of the "loving aspect"? LMAO. Pul-ease, woman. STFU. Really. Just shut the fuck up.
A single woman is not fit to parent, according to you. THAT is why this thread was created.
Didn't I give you enough of a spanking last time?
When are the selfish "it's all about me" frumps, you know, like you, going to learn tht an adult has the ability to exert some control over their environment, and their life, and an infant does not.
That is why an adult should make decisions that enhance the possibilities of a happy, successful life for the helpless, 'storm tossed' child that is placed in their care. Clearly, your neediness doesn't allow you to see the difference.
And as for "STFU", thanks for exposing the inability to deal with opposing ideas and concepts, and proving what I have been saying about your ilk.
Now, here is another learning moment for you:
"The "marketplace of ideas" is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The "marketplace of ideas" belief holds that the truth or the best policy arises out of the competition of widely various ideas in free, transparent public discourse, an important part of liberal democracy."
So, how does stack up with "STFU"?
Clearly, your marketplace of ideas is the lavatory.
Here is the operative quote that separates us:
"To be a mother, you and another adult, committed partner (i.e. spouse) have the interest, intent, ability, and means to make the necessary sacrifices of time, attention, and resources to give the child the nurturing, security, support, love and education he or she needs! Procreation has little to do with your needs; it has everything to do with the child's needs."
You, foul-mouthed, self-centered shrew of limited intellectual ability, can crawl back into, or under, your midden.
So.. You're fine with two men, or two women adopting a child? After all, it's two parents, and two parents are ALWAYS better than one, right?
Or do you not possess the balls to further state that only heterosexual married couples may adopt a child, in your small little world?
What do you recommend happen to all of these children that are not being aborted, but are still being given up by their mothers? You think it far better for a child to spend the first 18 years of it's life with an adoption agency, prior to being turned out on its own, since for all intents and purposes, the state is finished with you once you become a legal adult?
Seriously.. You are one twisted puppy.
Didn't I give you enough of a spanking last time?
When are the selfish "it's all about me" frumps, you know, like you, going to learn tht an adult has the ability to exert some control over their environment, and their life, and an infant does not.
That is why an adult should make decisions that enhance the possibilities of a happy, successful life for the helpless, 'storm tossed' child that is placed in their care. Clearly, your neediness doesn't allow you to see the difference.
And as for "STFU", thanks for exposing the inability to deal with opposing ideas and concepts, and proving what I have been saying about your ilk.
Now, here is another learning moment for you:
"The "marketplace of ideas" is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The "marketplace of ideas" belief holds that the truth or the best policy arises out of the competition of widely various ideas in free, transparent public discourse, an important part of liberal democracy."
So, how does stack up with "STFU"?
Clearly, your marketplace of ideas is the lavatory.
Here is the operative quote that separates us:
"To be a mother, you and another adult, committed partner (i.e. spouse) have the interest, intent, ability, and means to make the necessary sacrifices of time, attention, and resources to give the child the nurturing, security, support, love and education he or she needs! Procreation has little to do with your needs; it has everything to do with the child's needs."
You, foul-mouthed, self-centered shrew of limited intellectual ability, can crawl back into, or under, your midden.
So.. You're fine with two men, or two women adopting a child? After all, it's two parents, and two parents are ALWAYS better than one, right?
Or do you not possess the balls to further state that only heterosexual married couples may adopt a child, in your small little world?
What do you recommend happen to all of these children that are not being aborted, but are still being given up by their mothers? You think it far better for a child to spend the first 18 years of it's life with an adoption agency, prior to being turned out on its own, since for all intents and purposes, the state is finished with you once you become a legal adult?
Seriously.. You are one twisted puppy.
You know, I just realized that in this thread, there are a number of posts by a new member who writes well, and the import of whose posts is very similar to the import of my posts: he also doesnt feel that a single mother would make an appropriate home for a perspective infant.
And guess what? Neither of you felt it necessary to attack his posts!!!
And I can guess why: your are servile, cowering biddies, who somehow feel it would be easier to denigrate a woman, but would not dare to try the same on a man!!!
You weak, subordinate sisters! This is so laughable! Since his points mirror mine in so many ways, you crones must make believe that you dont notice same. Cowards. Cowardly losers.
Id say you girls have an inferiority complex, except its not a complex.
You whimps are an insult the distaff side. Ooopss, I forgot your trouble with language. Distaff means womem.
