|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:52 pm
A pro life choice thread!
ok yes there is a catch, I couldn't find an adoption thread. Adoption is a STRONG prolife agrument, I agree its a good one. I have a small problem with Adoption and I was wondering if all of you wouldn't mind brainstorming the problem with me to fix it? After all the best way to stop argument is to become rid of the problem no?
Ok so my Aunt, who can't have children period, is the reason why I dislike adoptions. See she tried for what ten years to get a child from an adoption clinic? She told them she didn't care the age, or the gender, or if s/he was disabled, she would take the child in and love him/her to bits and peices and give him/her a good home. My aunt is a good woman, she would have been a wonderful mother.
She had offers of children, most of which spoke only spanish. My aunt is fluent in spanish in all forms from chicano to classical, but the adoption agencies DENIED her because her first language is english, not Spanish. This happened with many children. She either wasn't the correct religion, didn't have the right heredity, or her first language wasn't spanish.
10 years. Over and over.
The adoption agencies didn't feel one bit of remorse in informing her that because she wasn't JUST RIGHT they could probably never find her a child.
She finnaly adopted a girl she had taught for years, who lived in a foster home for her LAST YEAR as a minor. That girl is a wonderful girl, and the only reason why they were able to adopt her was because the Girl went through the process to ENSURE they would be able to adopt her.
Mind my aunt is in PERFECT finicial situation, both her and my uncle are stable with degrees. They have no spots on their record and are practically model citizens and still adoption agencies refused her. (Yes she tried MANY)
Sorry I don't like adoption agencies, or the idea of putting a child up for adoption as a choice if you don't want a child. There are MILLIONS of children without homes, and yet this wonderful home was refused a child.
That will never make sense to me.
Do any of you know anything that could be done to ensure that situations like this never happen again? Because to me it seems just wrong.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:05 am
That sounds like she may have gone through private agencies, which can be a big no-no. A lot of times in a private agency the parent will say "I want my child raised by this kind of person." and so that's all the agencies will look for.
I have a friend who is adopted, Jean-Pascal (I call him JP for short) his parents aren't religious at all and he was 6 months when he was adopted. His brother, Anthony was also adopted only he was adopted when he was 3 1/2 and he is kind of messed up because his mother did drugs during her pregnancy/while she was breast feeding.
Now if your aunt went through say government adoption then there's a serious problem there. I know that there's a waitlist for newborns here in Canada, but to be denied for no good reason is a completely other story. Another problem with adoption is that sometimes the rules are too strict in some places, such as some places won't let you adopt a child if you have a big dog. If you already have kids it's very difficult for you to adopt etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:27 pm
It's not a problem with adoption as a concept that you're describing, but rather agencies with their heads firmly wedged in their colons. Adoption, done right, unites a child in need of parents with a loving parent or two. Abortion, done "right," just kills the fetus. You can't make that a good thing no matter what you do.
The people who would not be supportive of reforming the adoption system could probably be counted on one hand. Insist on unrestrained access to abortion instead, and if not a majority, you've got a very large, vocal minority who disagrees completely.
My problem with the pro-choice movement is their priorities, you see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:50 pm
She went through gov and private, both denied her. She tried essentially everything. She has a dog but its small, and as stated before, she has no other children. We live in the US, so I dun know about a waiting list, she never mentioned one, except that she was waiting between the prospect of differant children.
@La Veuve Zin - This sin't meant to be a VS thread, but more of a "Ok how do we solve a problem that I a pro choicer, have with Adoptions, a pro life option, that alot of Pro Choicers Might also ahve problems with" IE I'm trying to help ya'll out. Compromise is a good thing, solving problems we have with each others argument is the way to destroy the argument and gain a higher understanding of each other in a more tollerable world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:30 pm
You might like my year and a half old adoption rant. http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=198366I'm really, really annoyed with the system. And I don't remember if any of it makes any sense. But it was a fun rant! Anyway, you're right, a lot of adoption agencies turn people away for silly reasons. The problem isn't a lack of people wanting to adopt, or a lack of children in the adoption system. There's a distinct problem in the system itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Faeyas "Ok how do we solve a problem that I a pro choicer, have with Adoptions, a pro life option, that alot of Pro Choicers Might also ahve problems with" IE I'm trying to help ya'll out. Compromise is a good thing, solving problems we have with each others argument is the way to destroy the argument and gain a higher understanding of each other in a more tollerable world. Hrm, I thought that's what I partially implied. Specifically, that reforming the adoption process is something everyone can agree on, and it might reduce the number of abortions out there or at the very least, help people who want to become parents do so. Thus it makes sense for adoption reform to be a goal for everyone, something that no one will really fight over. I'm not saying eveyone should avoid conflict, but that the more universal a goal, the easier it is to accomplish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:58 pm
yes, adoption is a crappy choice. but is killing the child any better? at least adoption gives the child a choice and a chance at life. and of course, sometimes adoption does ******** good people over. the system needs improvement, no doubt, but that is no excuse to spread death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:36 am
Lyme - Rants are fun, your venting anger in a healthy way, thus they are not supposed to make sense, its a rant, not a thesis! XD Wouldn't it be better if we could just solve this problem?
LaV- Right sorry, my deffense mech kicked in. This is a larger problem, agreed, and more universal, but more importantly, its a differant angle. Its something that from what I've seen, that both Pro lifers, and pro choicers seem to have some problem with. Since it is a potential deterant from abortion, another choice that Pro lifers have a strong problem with, and since it is a choice, which in order to be effective needs to work, *shrug* you get the jist. And it might seem that prochoice is all about abortion, this could be for many reasons. 1) you are honestly and truely dealing with "Pro abortion" choicers 2) the prochoicers are discussing a matter that pretains to both your stance and theirs, since where the lines often get crossed between pro life and pro choice, is on abortion. 3) the choicers you are communicating with are so stuck in a loop from debating Abortion as a choice that they have forgotten to defend other choices in the meantime. There are more but I'm sure you understand wink
Div - Adoption is a crummy choice, So lets fix it!!! Try to remember, I'm pro choice (all options) meaning that if a choice is faulty, I want it fixed, because an option isn't an option if its fundementally not working. Abortion happens to be a choice, with some fundemental working problems, but not the one we are working on currently.
I agree, that if adoption was a more open, people friendly, effective system that wasn't all screwed up it MIGHT lower abortion rates because people wouldn't be scared for their children when they have them, if they have to give them to adoption for support reasons. This is a fundemental problem, solved I'm sure we can gain alot of ground between the two opposing forces.
So, Adoptions are supposed to match up children who need a good home, with good homes. This doesn't happen a good deal of the time. While as stated above this is worse with private adoptions and slightly better with government funded ones, there is still a problem. The easiest solution would be to make laws that specify general requirements...
However this doesn't always mean an ideal home.
So, if we were to attack this problem like this there would be a few things to consider:
1) what general qualifications could be used to find a good home, every time?
2) How do we feel about same sex partners, or single adoptions?
3) What kinds of safety precautions can we put into place that wouldn't highly restrict couples with good homes getting children through adoption, yet still protect the well being of the children?
4) at what point would it be considered illegal, on the grounds of denying a child a good home and keeping them in an orphanage (or whatever the modern equivilent is), to deny potential parents from adopting?
In addition are there any other ways we can attack this problem? or another problem in the adoption process? and how would be deal with them and what potential complications might come up and how would we handle them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:22 am
Faeyas
So, if we were to attack this problem like this there would be a few things to consider:
1) what general qualifications could be used to find a good home, every time?
2) How do we feel about same sex partners, or single adoptions?
3) What kinds of safety precautions can we put into place that wouldn't highly restrict couples with good homes getting children through adoption, yet still protect the well being of the children?
4) at what point would it be considered illegal, on the grounds of denying a child a good home and keeping them in an orphanage (or whatever the modern equivilent is), to deny potential parents from adopting?
1) This may seem unfair, but I'd insist on minimum resources. Children cost a lot of money, and if you're going to be struggling to support one, it's not fair to the child. However, that's considering the way things are now in the US. I think a sort of flat rate welfare should be instituted for all parents, and that the government should cover the bare minimum cost of raising each child, including free health care (well, I think everyone should have free health care...), food stamps, clothing vouchers, etc. Being a parent is a full-time, extremely demanding, extremely important job, and it should be compensated like one. 2) Go nuts. If you're a good parent, I could care less whether you're asexual or banging a different person of the same sex every night. 3 and 4 are kind of the same, I think: It needs to be law that sexual orientation, marital status, gender/sex status, race, religion, etc. are not grounds on which someone can be denied parenthood. It should be limited to whether or not someone will make a good parent: whether or not they have the resources required for raising a child, know the basics of child development and health and have the dedication to devote the time necessary to raise a child. People who would beat their kids with a belt, spend all day drunk and feed them Mt. Dew and Cheetos all the time should not have the right to be parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:48 pm
I agree to alot of what you said (I'm libertarian, so forgive me cringing at the government handing out welfare ^_~) Does anyone else have any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Nope. I pretty much agree as well. Stupid things like whether someone has a dog or whether someone's gay or straight shouldn't be grounds for not allowing them to adopt. And I also don't think handing out welfare like that is a good idea, as we already have problems with parents who are just parents for the money. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:05 pm
smile
I will still wait for a few more ideas, as about three people isn't a large enough pool of opinion.
While waiting, what would be a good political action that as citizens, we can do to help push such favorable policy and get rid of policy that is making it difficult for families to adopt?
EDIT: Oh and I was wondering if any of you minded if I brought a simular thread into the PCG and got some ideas there as well, I mean we might not agree about ABORTION, but I believe we could at least work together on trying to fix adoption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:45 pm
lol, it's your thread, it's not like you need our permission. xd
I actually enjoy seeing similar threads in the PCG and the PLG. It's interesting to see how each side differs in their typical responses. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:55 pm
[the thread says "Pay attention to me!"]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
