Qualified to adopt?

[PoliticalChic]

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 doesn’t 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 don’t notice same. Cowards. Cowardly losers.

I’d say you girls have an inferiority complex, except it’s not a complex.

You whimps are an insult the distaff side. Ooopss, I forgot your trouble with language. Distaff means womem.

WTF are you talking about, you severely deluded windbag? I don't know "him" from Adam, I haven't been here all day, because unlike you, some of us have things to do, and this isn't a discussion I've been having with "him" - it's one I've been having with YOU. Therefore, I have no reason to jump all over someone just because YOU think I should. For the record, there are two of you, now. You should be very proud. One whole person agrees with you - throw a friggen party. (Where's that little noisemaker icon when you need it)

So very good (and typical!) of you to avoid my very specific questions, however.

Why, DISproportionate, what a thin response: "I haven't been here all day..."

And yet you inadvertently admit that you read the thread in its entirety: " One whole person agrees with you..."

What a fraud you are, a cowardly fraud.

Since you are unencumbered by the thought process, let me explain: it's not the numbers that count, for I held my own and then some against you and the rest of the witches, it's the points that I made, and the 'Rat' made that destroy your silly invective-laden buffoonery.

Where are your curses, accusations, lies and attacks on our new member?

Could it be that I've exposed another weakness in your character: afraid to confront this new member because he is a man?

How can you explain it? The points that I made are there in his posts!

My logic destroyed your "It's all about me" argument in the great 330+ thread, and now the same argument is posted by our new member.

And now you wish to ask some new question? Why?

Oh, I see, because you have been beaten so thoroughly, you must try to change the subject.

Here it is again, read it and weep:
"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."

 

[Againsheila]

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?

IMO, this is how it shoud go. !st available to two parent, father/mother families, because children need two parents and they need both a mother and a father figure. 2nd, to gay couples. Two parents are better than one parent. 3rd, to single parents. One parent is better than none.

 

[Againsheila]

So, is the child better off with a single parent or in foster care?

Tough question, but I have to disagree with you. Foster care is temporary; adoption is permanent. Adopting the child to a single parent can prevent them from being placed with a married family later.

Being in a stable home early on is very important to a child and has lasting effects. Being sent from one foster home to another can have really bad effects on a child.

I agree with the foster to adopt program. I also think that a single parent is better than no parent at all. Kids need stability. they aren't going to get that if you are going to hold them until you find a suitable 2 parent family. What's worse, every year, their chances of being adopted go down.

 

[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?

IMO, this is how it shoud go. !st available to two parent, father/mother families, because children need two parents and they need both a mother and a father figure. 2nd, to gay couples. Two parents are better than one parent. 3rd, to single parents. One parent is better than none.

Well, at least you're easier going than PC. Per her,once option 1 in your list has been exhausted, that's it. There are no other options, and those children stay wards of the state until they're 18, at which point they're thrown out on their ass with no life experience, and likely nothing beyond a textbook education.

Tho, just out of curiosity... Suppose the single mother is more qualified than the gay couple? And why wouldn't the gay couple be the last consideration, given the mental adjustment a child is going to have to contend with being raised in a gay household?

 

[Againsheila]

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?

IMO, this is how it shoud go. !st available to two parent, father/mother families, because children need two parents and they need both a mother and a father figure. 2nd, to gay couples. Two parents are better than one parent. 3rd, to single parents. One parent is better than none.

Well, at least you're easier going than PC. Per her,once option 1 in your list has been exhausted, that's it. There are no other options, and those children stay wards of the state until they're 18, at which point they're thrown out on their ass with no life experience, and likely nothing beyond a textbook education.

Tho, just out of curiosity... Suppose the single mother is more qualified than the gay couple? And why wouldn't the gay couple be the last consideration, given the mental adjustment a child is going to have to contend with being raised in a gay household?

I don't think there is anyway in heck a single parent can be more qualified than two parents regardless of gender/sexual orientation. You need someone to spell you when you are losing it and all parents lose it at one time or another. You need someone to take care of the kids when you are sick, and everyone gets sick at some time or another. The only time I can see a single parent being more qualified is when they are wealthy enough to hire 24 hour care, and let's face it, there are darn few of them, and I wouldn't want to give rich people more rights to adopt than the rest of us. It just seems wrong to me.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

I, for one, disagree thoroughly with the practice of some wealthy families allowing their children to be raised by hirelings. I would rather hire servants for every other possible purpose in order to be given the time to raise my children.

If you're going to allow your children to be raised by strangers, interchangeable strangers, why would you even give them your family name in the first place?

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?

Can't speak for her, but yes, I am fine with it. All available science shows that children raised by a committed homosexual couple do as well in every measure of childhood well-being as children raised by committed but unmarried heterosexuals. That, and the fact that homosexuals are already adopting children-- since we allow it for singles-- are the main reasons why I am not opposed to allowing homosexuals to legally marry.

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 know, there are three main types of children that are practically unadoptable. There are older children, minority children, and defective children.

Ain't much we can about about older children, but increasing the pool of adoptive parents should help.

Avoiding any speculations of a racial nature, one of the major problems with minority children is that the majority of couples that are considered qualified to adopt are white and upper middle class. While there is the matter that many of them would prefer to adopt white children, there are many, many people who would be happy to adopt any healthy child-- and the law in most cases does not allow this, preferring to keep those children "among their own kind." Allow more people to adopt children across racial boundaries, and you will see many of these children adopted and many couples satisfied, when they would have been forced to continue to wait for a white baby.

There isn't much we can do about improving adoption rates among defective children. Frankly, I don't even think it is a good idea. They're just going to end up wards of the state again as soon as their parents can no longer support them.

 

[Luissa]

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.

I am a single mom and my son has a very stable life, thanks in large part to the fact I have a good family. I also do not date or bring men in and out of his life. And if I married his father, my son would not have a stable home life.
My friend had parents who stayed together because of her and she picked up on it at an early age, she also got the joy of figuring out her father was seeing someone else because his wife would never have sex with him. Like I said you put people into a box.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

Humans, by nature, are not suppose to raise their children as couples either. The original method for raising children, which worked far better than anything we have today, was that they stayed home with the elders and homeworkers while the able bodied humans went and toiled. Raised as a group by a smaller group, related by blood to only one in the group, if any at all (many women did not survive childbirth so there were many children without mothers at that time as well). So ... you are wrong still, no matter how you twist it.

 

[Luissa]

IMO, this is how it shoud go. !st available to two parent, father/mother families, because children need two parents and they need both a mother and a father figure. 2nd, to gay couples. Two parents are better than one parent. 3rd, to single parents. One parent is better than none.

Well, at least you're easier going than PC. Per her,once option 1 in your list has been exhausted, that's it. There are no other options, and those children stay wards of the state until they're 18, at which point they're thrown out on their ass with no life experience, and likely nothing beyond a textbook education.

Tho, just out of curiosity... Suppose the single mother is more qualified than the gay couple? And why wouldn't the gay couple be the last consideration, given the mental adjustment a child is going to have to contend with being raised in a gay household?

I don't think there is anyway in heck a single parent can be more qualified than two parents regardless of gender/sexual orientation. You need someone to spell you when you are losing it and all parents lose it at one time or another. You need someone to take care of the kids when you are sick, and everyone gets sick at some time or another. The only time I can see a single parent being more qualified is when they are wealthy enough to hire 24 hour care, and let's face it, there are darn few of them, and I wouldn't want to give rich people more rights to adopt than the rest of us. It just seems wrong to me.

a support group doesn't always mean it has to be another parent helping you. When I get sick do you think I can call my child's father to help me? No I have friends and family that help me. When I was sick a month ago my parents watched my son. Right now I am pretty much the mom who makes the rules and my mom is the dad who spoils my son and is there when I cannot be along with my father. Everyone always tells me I have such a good natured child and he behaves better than a lot of the kids his age and he is a very happy child along with being well taken care of. A family also doesn't mean you have to be blood related.

 

[roomy]

Correct me if I am wrong but have single parents not been making a pretty decent job of raising kids forever?I know it is more difficuilt but it is doable.
Those that would deny both a prospective single parent and a prospective loved and well raised child the chance at life together because of marital status need to rethink.Is it possible they base their opinions on their own lack of ability as a parent?

Mr Rat, shut the fuck up.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

The original method for raising children, which worked far better than anything we have today, was that they stayed home with the elders and homeworkers while the able bodied humans went and toiled.

And if I thought I could get that back, I'd be fighting for it. Unfortunately, I have to work with the society I live in-- which would likely never return to this standard.

 

[KittenKoder]

The original method for raising children, which worked far better than anything we have today, was that they stayed home with the elders and homeworkers while the able bodied humans went and toiled.

And if I thought I could get that back, I'd be fighting for it. Unfortunately, I have to work with the society I live in-- which would likely never return to this standard.

Aaaah ... but there's your big flaw. Most single parents are raising their kids in that manner. They have lots of family and friends who help out, the children benefit greatly from the larger support system than from only having two parents, especially since most dual parent units seem to be so paranoid their kids almost never get any interaction with other adults. So your contention that a single parent who is financially secure is worse than a couple it wrong in practice.

 

[random3434]

I, for one, disagree thoroughly with the practice of some wealthy families allowing their children to be raised by hirelings. I would rather hire servants for every other possible purpose in order to be given the time to raise my children.

If you're going to allow your children to be raised by strangers, interchangeable strangers, why would you even give them your family name in the first place?

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?

Can't speak for her, but yes, I am fine with it. All available science shows that children raised by a committed homosexual couple do as well in every measure of childhood well-being as children raised by committed but unmarried heterosexuals. That, and the fact that homosexuals are already adopting children-- since we allow it for singles-- are the main reasons why I am not opposed to allowing homosexuals to legally marry.

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 know, there are three main types of children that are practically unadoptable. There are older children, minority children, and defective children.

Ain't much we can about about older children, but increasing the pool of adoptive parents should help.

Avoiding any speculations of a racial nature, one of the major problems with minority children is that the majority of couples that are considered qualified to adopt are white and upper middle class. While there is the matter that many of them would prefer to adopt white children, there are many, many people who would be happy to adopt any healthy child-- and the law in most cases does not allow this, preferring to keep those children "among their own kind." Allow more people to adopt children across racial boundaries, and you will see many of these children adopted and many couples satisfied, when they would have been forced to continue to wait for a white baby.

There isn't much we can do about improving adoption rates among defective children. Frankly, I don't even think it is a good idea. They're just going to end up wards of the state again as soon as their parents can no longer support them.

WHAT IN PRAY TELL IS A DEFECTIVE CHILD?

One who is not "perfect?"

Why don't you ask the parents here of special needs kids if they consider their children "defective." Oh, and while you're at it, ask them when they think they will turn their children over to be 'wards of the state.'


Geez Freaking Lousie.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

WHAT IN PRAY TELL IS A DEFECTIVE CHILD? One who is not "perfect?"

Noone is perfect. But the rest of the post indicates that you seem to know exactly what I am talking about. Doesn't seem to have been much point to asking me this question, except to attempt to argue that the children in question are not defective.

Considering the fact that, in order to be defective, a child must suffer from "birth defects" or "congenital deformities", I think trying to argue that they are not defective is an exercise in absurdity.

Why don't you ask the parents here of special needs kids if they consider their children "defective."

Because I know how much they have sacrificed for their children, and that they love their children very much, and the very last thing that I would ever want to do is compound their tragedy by belittling them or by offending them any more than I can avoid. I am sincerely sorry that my opinion is so offensive to so many people, especially to people in a very difficult situation.

But that doesn't change the fact that I believe I'm right, and that all of the money and manpower that we spend on trying to give these people a "normal" life is a terrible waste. Telling them that they can have a normal life, and that they can do anything that normal people can do, is neither fair to them nor to all of the people who have to help them try to accomplish the impossible.

Oh, and while you're at it, ask them when they think they will turn their children over to be 'wards of the state.'

From my experience, it's either within a couple of years of their child's eighteenth birthday, or when they realize that they are too old (or their finances too depleted) to continue caring for them. I am sure that those in the latter category would love to continue caring for their children forever-- but they're not going to live forever, and after they die their children are not miraculously going to become capable of taking care of themselves.

 

[Luissa]

The original method for raising children, which worked far better than anything we have today, was that they stayed home with the elders and homeworkers while the able bodied humans went and toiled.

And if I thought I could get that back, I'd be fighting for it. Unfortunately, I have to work with the society I live in-- which would likely never return to this standard.

Aaaah ... but there's your big flaw. Most single parents are raising their kids in that manner. They have lots of family and friends who help out, the children benefit greatly from the larger support system than from only having two parents, especially since most dual parent units seem to be so paranoid their kids almost never get any interaction with other adults. So your contention that a single parent who is financially secure is worse than a couple it wrong in practice.

I agree! I think my son has it better than if he had two parents around all the time. My whole family does quite a bit since it is just me. My parents love all their grand kids the same but I think they have a special place for my son, for one they are with him all the time. With my mom working most of the time from home she takes care of my son when I am at school and work. My dad already plans to retire when my son reaches kindergarten so he can pick him from school every day, you can tell he excited for this. There is no way my son is lacking for anything.

 

[xsited1]

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?

That used to be the case because a child does best if they have both a loving mother AND father. However, there are too many kids and not enough adoptive parents so it's no longer practical. Two parents get first choice. After that, I would make sure that in the absence of a father or a mother, a substitute is available (like an aunt, uncle or other family member or friend).

 

[alan1]

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.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.
My children were raised in a much more stable (single parent) household (mine) than had my wife and I remained married. Having an alcoholic mother in a two parent household would have been much worse for them. As a single parent, my income was enough to provide for us. I didn't neglect my parental responsibilities, but I did pass up some employment promotions because they would have caused me to spend less time with my children. They were choices I gladly made and would do so again. I passed up dating opportunities because they also would have caused me to spend less of my life with my children.
My ex-wife eventually entered sobriety, and at 13 years of age, my youngest daughter decided she wanted to live with her mother instead of me. Still a single parent household, no better or worse than my single parent household. While I would have preferred that my youngest remained with me, her mother was a competent and loving parent at that point so I did nothing to prevent my daughter's choice.
I will agree that stable 2 parent household is preferable to a stable single parent household, but a stable single parent household is preferable to an unstable 2 parent household. I know, because I've lived it as a parent.

 

[Againsheila]

I, for one, disagree thoroughly with the practice of some wealthy families allowing their children to be raised by hirelings. I would rather hire servants for every other possible purpose in order to be given the time to raise my children.

If you're going to allow your children to be raised by strangers, interchangeable strangers, why would you even give them your family name in the first place?

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?

Can't speak for her, but yes, I am fine with it. All available science shows that children raised by a committed homosexual couple do as well in every measure of childhood well-being as children raised by committed but unmarried heterosexuals. That, and the fact that homosexuals are already adopting children-- since we allow it for singles-- are the main reasons why I am not opposed to allowing homosexuals to legally marry.

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 know, there are three main types of children that are practically unadoptable. There are older children, minority children, and defective children.

Ain't much we can about about older children, but increasing the pool of adoptive parents should help.

Avoiding any speculations of a racial nature, one of the major problems with minority children is that the majority of couples that are considered qualified to adopt are white and upper middle class. While there is the matter that many of them would prefer to adopt white children, there are many, many people who would be happy to adopt any healthy child-- and the law in most cases does not allow this, preferring to keep those children "among their own kind." Allow more people to adopt children across racial boundaries, and you will see many of these children adopted and many couples satisfied, when they would have been forced to continue to wait for a white baby.

There isn't much we can do about improving adoption rates among defective children. Frankly, I don't even think it is a good idea. They're just going to end up wards of the state again as soon as their parents can no longer support them.

WHAT IN PRAY TELL IS A DEFECTIVE CHILD?

One who is not "perfect?"

Why don't you ask the parents here of special needs kids if they consider their children "defective." Oh, and while you're at it, ask them when they think they will turn their children over to be 'wards of the state.'


Geez Freaking Lousie.

I have two special needs children and I can tell you, depending on the severity of the diability, many children are still given over to be wards of the state, many of them from two parent families as well. Of those raising kids with low function autism, we are one of the few that kept our son at home until he turned 21. He's still at home 3 days out of the week but thank the Lord we've found a good Adult Family Home for him. Sad thing is, if the state would have provided us with two weeks respite care a year, we wouldn't have put him in the AFH in the first place, and the AFH is costing the state a heck of a lot more than respite care would have.

I will also tell you that, having my son in that AFH has done wonders for my health, both mentally and physically. He's not a ward of the state though. I still have to do the paperwork, but we will be his legal guardians and should anything happen to us, my nephew will take over the job.

 

[Againsheila]

Well, at least you're easier going than PC. Per her,once option 1 in your list has been exhausted, that's it. There are no other options, and those children stay wards of the state until they're 18, at which point they're thrown out on their ass with no life experience, and likely nothing beyond a textbook education.

Tho, just out of curiosity... Suppose the single mother is more qualified than the gay couple? And why wouldn't the gay couple be the last consideration, given the mental adjustment a child is going to have to contend with being raised in a gay household?

I don't think there is anyway in heck a single parent can be more qualified than two parents regardless of gender/sexual orientation. You need someone to spell you when you are losing it and all parents lose it at one time or another. You need someone to take care of the kids when you are sick, and everyone gets sick at some time or another. The only time I can see a single parent being more qualified is when they are wealthy enough to hire 24 hour care, and let's face it, there are darn few of them, and I wouldn't want to give rich people more rights to adopt than the rest of us. It just seems wrong to me.

a support group doesn't always mean it has to be another parent helping you. When I get sick do you think I can call my child's father to help me? No I have friends and family that help me. When I was sick a month ago my parents watched my son. Right now I am pretty much the mom who makes the rules and my mom is the dad who spoils my son and is there when I cannot be along with my father. Everyone always tells me I have such a good natured child and he behaves better than a lot of the kids his age and he is a very happy child along with being well taken care of. A family also doesn't mean you have to be blood related.

Once again, two is better than one, one is better than none. I'm not saying single people shouldn't be able to adopt, only that two parent families should take presidence. I know a woman who has adopted two children and she does a great job raising them and gets a lot of help from her parents. I have a great deal of respect for her. I have even more respect for her because instead of having children herself, out of wedlock, she adopted two chidren who needed a home.

 

[Againsheila]

Correct me if I am wrong but have single parents not been making a pretty decent job of raising kids forever?I know it is more difficuilt but it is doable.
Those that would deny both a prospective single parent and a prospective loved and well raised child the chance at life together because of marital status need to rethink.Is it possible they base their opinions on their own lack of ability as a parent?

Mr Rat, shut the fuck up.

According to the reports I've read, a child raised in a two parent family does better "on every measurable level" than a child raised in a one parent family. Those raised by single moms in a neighborhood of single moms do even worse.

Can a single mom do a great job? Yes, but the odds are against them. That's why they should be last on the list of adoption. Again, two parent heterosexual couples should get to adopt first, then homosexual couples, then single parents. It's the states job to make sure that the children that are adopted have the best circumstances possible.