Moralities of adoption vs birthing

[saizai]

Why is it that people can claim simultaneously that there should be strict rules for who is allowed to become an adoptive parent (even of a baby) - showing competence, financial and psychological stability, etc - but that there should be no rules for who is allowed to have a baby the usual way? And they argue vehemently for the unshakable moral foundation of both positions...

It seems to me to be a necessary conflict, if you put aside complications like the cost of paying off the system (that's fair) and fulfilling whatever conditions the baby-donor has.

Either everyone is a suitable parent, or not.

People don't want to admit that most people aren't suitable parents because then that brings up eugenics and forced sterilization and people find that outrageous and immoral etc.

And they don't want to allow anyone to be a parent just by asking for a baby 'cause, well, most people aren't suitable parents. This, despite the number of kids in need of adopting.

 

[Lonewulf]

Good thread, Saizai. This is something that I've questioned a lot.

Why is it that people can claim simultaneously that there should be strict rules for who is allowed to become an adoptive parent (even of a baby) - showing competence, financial and psychological stability, etc - but that there should be no rules for who is allowed to have a baby the usual way? And they argue vehemently for the unshakable moral foundation of both positions...

It seems to me to be a necessary conflict, if you put aside complications like the cost of paying off the system (that's fair) and fulfilling whatever conditions the baby-donor has.

Either everyone is a suitable parent, or not.

People don't want to admit that most people aren't suitable parents because then that brings up eugenics and forced sterilization and people find that outrageous and immoral etc.

Exactly!

See, here's the thing: Take out the people that are obviously not capable parents; the mentally retarded (no offense to them), those with the most severe of genetic conditions (I'm putting this as a placeholder, can't think of all the different factors...), or those that do so many drugs that they'd end up with a deformed or dead baby, if they even live for that long.

There's still those that are just too immature and just don't have the relevant lifestyle to take care of a child. There are also those in an abusive relationship, who would just end up putting a child into that abusive relationship; the best way to take the child out of that situation is to seperate the child from the abuser, or... adoption.

Forced sterilization is a big iffy subject. So is the idea of abortion (I'm pro choice, myself, but only to a certain extent).

And they don't want to allow anyone to be a parent just by asking for a baby 'cause, well, most people aren't suitable parents. This, despite the number of kids in need of adopting.

And therein lies the hypocrisy of the situation.

However, what's defined as "not a suitable parent", to me, is way too strict. Are homosexual parents really unsuitable parents? Does every child really need one mother, one father? What about a single-parent household? What if the parent is below the poverty-line, but expects to pick herself up shortly?

But then, alternatively, what if someone is nice and rich and has a wife, has no criminal record, and has nothing wrong with him... except that he's a drunk and a wife-beater (just hasn't been arrested for it)? What if he becomes a drunk and a wife-beater a year after adoption? These are the things that are iffy about the whole process. No one wants to put a child with an unsuitable parent, but you practically have to be a mind-reader, or a fortune-teller, in order to tell who makes the best parent.

The difference between birth and adoption is there: With birth, two people get together and decide, for themselves, whether to have a child or not, making it solely their responsibility. With adoption, the relevant organizations give a child to someone else. This is a case of responsibility: In the former, the responsibility lies with the parents, and it's their decision; the state intervenes when it detects that the child is having it's rights abused (and yes, even children have rights; just not rights that assume that they have "free will"). However, with adoption, the responsibility lies with the adoption clinic; if they give a child to abusive parents, then they are the ones held responsible, not the parents themselves. This is, partly, why you have the double standard.

 

[qayak]

I completely agree with your stand here. I have argued this very thing with several friends and they do not think there is anything wrong with the current system, except that maybe it is too easy for people to adopt and more restrictions should be added!

Why is it that people can claim simultaneously that there should be strict rules for who is allowed to become an adoptive parent (even of a baby) - showing competence, financial and psychological stability, etc - but that there should be no rules for who is allowed to have a baby the usual way? And they argue vehemently for the unshakable moral foundation of both positions...

It seems to me to be a necessary conflict, if you put aside complications like the cost of paying off the system (that's fair) and fulfilling whatever conditions the baby-donor has.

Either everyone is a suitable parent, or not.

People don't want to admit that most people aren't suitable parents because then that brings up eugenics and forced sterilization and people find that outrageous and immoral etc.

And they don't want to allow anyone to be a parent just by asking for a baby 'cause, well, most people aren't suitable parents. This, despite the number of kids in need of adopting.

 

[blutoski]

Why is it that people can claim simultaneously that there should be strict rules for who is allowed to become an adoptive parent (even of a baby) - showing competence, financial and psychological stability, etc - but that there should be no rules for who is allowed to have a baby the usual way? And they argue vehemently for the unshakable moral foundation of both positions...

It seems to me to be a necessary conflict, if you put aside complications like the cost of paying off the system (that's fair) and fulfilling whatever conditions the baby-donor has.

Either everyone is a suitable parent, or not.

People don't want to admit that most people aren't suitable parents because then that brings up eugenics and forced sterilization and people find that outrageous and immoral etc.

And they don't want to allow anyone to be a parent just by asking for a baby 'cause, well, most people aren't suitable parents. This, despite the number of kids in need of adopting.

My first wife was a Child Protection Officer, so I have some insight with this topic. I think there are some things being overlooked that should be put on the table regarding this issue:

1. in most regions, the first rule of adoption is that the adopting parent have some relationship to the child, and the threshold of expectations is pretty low (eg: no history of sexual predation on children). Most adoptions are within an extended family.

2. in most regions, demand for "healthy" children (esp "healthy white" children) is greater than the supply, so the state is awarding to the highest bidder, if you will. The other kids, unfortunately, are about as close to unwanted as you can get, and they end up in foster homes which have shockingly low standards.

3. regarding parenting... there are only two ways to stop somebody from being a mom or dad: a) sterilization / forced medication. This is a violation of basic human rights that requires very compelling justification. or b) removal of a child from the parent(s). This does happen when the parent(s) have demonstrated they are unfit - a threshold that varies with region.

So: while there are no rules about who can make a baby, there are rules about who can keep a baby. The historical distinction is in no small part due to the abuse of eugenics programs to meet political or religious ends (most people are unaware that in the early days of eugenics here in Canada, eugenics programs were largely Socialist/Protestant undertakings, a la Tommy Douglas).

 

[blutoski]

My first wife was a Child Protection Officer, so I have some insight with this topic. I think there are some things being overlooked that should be put on the table regarding this issue:

Another thing I forgot to add: adoptions have problems that biological relationships do not have, such as attachment failures. The adoption agencies are not just looking for abuse risk - they are looking for families that demonstrate flexible approaches rather than extremely rigid ones. This is an intangible that can sometimes be detected by proxy.

And lastly: over the last few decades there has been a trend to move adoption services into the responsibility of the government, and away from sectarian organizations. For example, in BC, there was a Catholic adoption service whose placement criteria was very strict for religious reasons. My understanding is that this trend is actually reversing in the US with the Faith Based Initiatives funding rule changes.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Speaking as an adoptive parent, I don't really see any alternative to the current approach. You are not going to stop people from having children, regardless of how screwed up they are, because the only way to do that would be so intrusive that no one would put up with it (and it would be a slipperly slope). On the other hand, since adoption requires a process anyway, there is room to fit in some gating tests. Since we agree that not everyone is suited for parenting, we might as well test the few we can get away with.

That said, some of the adoption criteria are silly.

~~ Paul

 

[Ossai]

Lonewulf

The difference between birth and adoption is there: With birth, two people get together and decide, for themselves, whether to have a child or not, making it solely their responsibility.

I’ve got to strongly disagree with this one. Responsible people decide and make preparations, save money, etcetera prior to having a child. Most people aren’t responsible.
Even people that know better end up with unexpected babies. Throw in irresponsible people and you end up with quiet a few unexpected babies.

Ossai

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Does that mean those who fall accidentally pregnant because of something say effecting the pill are irresponsible?

 

[bluess]

Naw, CC, Ossai said that "even people who know better end up with unexpected babies."

I have to agree that having spent rather a lot of money, had my personal and financial life turned inside out, been fingerprinted twice (once by the state and the second time by homeland security), having the housing and fire departments inspect my house, and having had to sign a document promising to never torture my child, it was more than a bit aggravating to drive by a bus stop and see a teenage mom blowing cigarette smoke into the faces of her two children.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf
I’ve got to strongly disagree with this one. Responsible people decide and make preparations, save money, etcetera prior to having a child. Most people aren’t responsible.
Even people that know better end up with unexpected babies. Throw in irresponsible people and you end up with quiet a few unexpected babies.

It is their responsibility nonetheless. Just because someone is irresponsible, does not mean that they have no responsibilities. They just do not take those responsibilities seriously.

When did I state that all pregnant couples were responsible? You seem to be making a strawman here.

However, who the responsibility falls upon is a major part of this question. If you take the responsibility away from the parents, you also take away their freedom to raise that child. This falls down a scary slippery slope of the government taking on more responsibilities for the child, and thus the child being raised as the government wants it to be raised. When it comes to the child's health and safety, this is a major concern; but once you start restricting birthing rights through government control, things get a bit scary. I'd give examples, but I'd start to sound Orwellian.

Either way, this is a complex question that deserves a complex answer. Should people have to fill out forms to raise a child? What if religion or ethnicity or sexual preference (yes, it's possible!) come into play?

 

[saizai]

Would it be any different to restrict parenting rights rather than birthing rights?

E.g. require a government-approved "yes I'm a fit parent" card (~= what adoptive parents get as their OK) for someone to be allowed to keep their kid...

 

[Lonewulf]

Would it be any different to restrict parenting rights rather than birthing rights?

E.g. require a government-approved "yes I'm a fit parent" card (~= what adoptive parents get as their OK) for someone to be allowed to keep their kid...

But who decides what standards the parents should fit? What if homosexuals were not allowed to have children, at all, even if it was a lesbian couple and one was pregnant with child? What if the parents were avowed atheists?

Yes, if it's government-controlled, they might be able to pick out some of the biase; but it's a slippery slope, and open to a lot of abuse.

Also, there is a difference, as in one case you're giving someone a child, and in the other you're taking someone's child. I don't consider it equal, as there is a difference in responsibility.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Naw, CC, Ossai said that "even people who know better end up with unexpected babies."

I have to agree that having spent rather a lot of money, had my personal and financial life turned inside out, been fingerprinted twice (once by the state and the second time by homeland security), having the housing and fire departments inspect my house, and having had to sign a document promising to never torture my child, it was more than a bit aggravating to drive by a bus stop and see a teenage mom blowing cigarette smoke into the faces of her two children.

I share that aggravation - it makes you wonder about what they think having a child or children are. Other than disease carrying pest who grow and consume food like it grows in the refrigerator.

It is in those circumstances I wish parenting was by strict license. Take the exam if you pass here's your offspring. Fail, re-try or go. That just brings the 'goody-two-shoes' brigade in shouting about the right to bear children and it is a 'god given' right. 'God given' my proverbial rear-end.

Pretty much child raising is left to the parents in a you'll get eh hang of it fashion. That needs redressing. Parenting is not something that instinct, observation or limited book reading can cover. Then can you truly cover every aspect of raising a child? Can making a mistake, and maybe correcting it along the way, with current child or number 2,3 4 etc be that good or wise when raising a child?

Bad parenting or a bad parent, especially a mother is a highly taboo subject. One very few are willing to admit to or say anything about. How many here would admit that they are bad parents( by your own definition) or made a mistake?

Who or what defines a bad parent or bad parenting. Is it down to personal subjectiveness?

 

[Lonewulf]

Who or what defines a bad parent or bad parenting. Is it down to personal subjectiveness?

Yes, it's incredibly subjective.

Some people think that beating your kid is too disciplinarian, and hate the idea of the "paddle stick". Others think that you need to be harsh to keep your child from doing the wrong or right thing. Some people think that you should raise your kid to have your own personal political and religious philosophy. Others think that that's wrong; Dawkins called it child abuse to teach your child only one religion (though he wasn't being fully serious with the term, I believe). Some think that they should give their children more freedom to make their own mistakes. Some think that it's best to keep them from potentially negative outside influences.

And my argument isn't that it's a "god-given right". But I certainly don't want a body of people that I don't fully trust to have the power to take a hypothetical child away from me, for things that I would consider silly or ludicrous; and I bet you that that will happen, just because you cannot take out the human nature (or the religious biase) from the U.S. government.

Either way, though, I would never actually have a child; I'm against kids in general. If I had my way, they'd be a renewable food source.

Hmm... maybe I'm going about this the wrong way.

Article 1, Section 5 of my constitution when I become dictator: "Any child that breaks a law will be subsequently served with tomatos, garlic sauce, and mushrooms."

 

[Ossai]

Corpse Cruncher

Does that mean those who fall accidentally pregnant because of something say effecting the pill are irresponsible?

I never said that. I said that even those that know better, responsible people, end up with unexpected babies.


Lonewulf

It is their responsibility nonetheless. Just because someone is irresponsible, does not mean that they have no responsibilities. They just do not take those responsibilities seriously.

Yes, they have responsibilities. I’m not stating they don’t. Responsible people plan for a child. Irresponsible people do not plan, do not receive adequate prenatal care, do not provide a loving environment for the child, etc. Even responsible people end up with unexpected pregnancies, but being responsible, they do the responsible thing and start planning.

However, who the responsibility falls upon is a major part of this question. If you take the responsibility away from the parents, you also take away their freedom to raise that child.

I don’t see a bad side there. Some people should not raise children.

Either way, this is a complex question that deserves a complex answer. Should people have to fill out forms to raise a child? What if religion or ethnicity or sexual preference (yes, it's possible!) come into play?

Let me put it this way. If a parent or parents have proven themselves unable to raise a child they should be sterilized. If in the future they change and want another child they should have to go through the same process as an any adopting parents in order to have the sterilization reversed.

Society (I’m speaking USA here) should be the first thing that changes. The welfare state that currently exists and awards people for having more babies should be overhauled. I’m not talking about the people that actually need help, but those that abuse the system.

Ossai

 

[VulcanWay]

Would it be any different to restrict parenting rights rather than birthing rights?

E.g. require a government-approved "yes I'm a fit parent" card (~= what adoptive parents get as their OK) for someone to be allowed to keep their kid...

I think the two main things that would get in the way of such a card are politics and money.

What parent would vote for a senator/congressperson/president that would put into motion something that could get their own kids taken away. I can see the paranoia now! The guy who's about to declare bankruptcy - "Will that make me lose my kids??" The mother who is clean of narcotics for three years. Et cetera.

And money. First we have to research what makes a fit parent - that study alone would take millions and years to accomplish. Then you need a new department to administer testing to each and every parent. Then a re-evaluation/appeals committee (and the guidelines therein). Then (without throwing out random numbers) the need to place/house the children that are deemed to have unfit parents. Adoptions being what they are and foster care being as iffy/dangerous as it is today, the extra load of these kids could have the potential to topply what is in place today (which may be a good thing).

Our society just isn't built for that kind of smarts.

 

[Lonewulf]

Let me put it this way. If a parent or parents have proven themselves unable to raise a child they should be sterilized. If in the future they change and want another child they should have to go through the same process as an any adopting parents in order to have the sterilization reversed.

What the Fornication? Forced sterilization?

Okay. Who gets to decide who's unfit or not? What objective standards do we have to go on? What if we make a mistake? Who's going to pay for all the sterilization to be done?

If something like drugs or alcoholism is an issue, then do you factor in that some people get over drugs and rehabilitate themselves?

At what age do we sterilize people? People can get pregnant at young ages. Should we drag out 16 year olds, and judge how effective of parents they will be at the age of 30? Or even 25?

Are you saying that people never change? Or should we get psychics to see who really makes the worst of parents?

 

[Ossai]

Lonewulf

What the Fornication? Forced sterilization?

Forced sterilization.

Okay. Who gets to decide who's unfit or not? What objective standards do we have to go on? What if we make a mistake?

Mistakes happen. I didn’t say it would be easy. It could start off with the obvious cases of unfit parents.
Parents that keep their kids chained up.
Parents that severely neglect their children.
Parents that abuse their children.

Who's going to pay for all the sterilization to be done?

Society, the cost of a sterilization surgical procedure is miniscule when compared to the cost to society of babies with bad parents.

If something like drugs or alcoholism is an issue, then do you factor in that some people get over drugs and rehabilitate themselves?

If their drug use was what caused them to be deemed bad parents to begin with then they would have to prove that they were over it. No idea how, but something could be worked out. Again, I’m not offering easy answers but ideas for a starting place.

At what age do we sterilize people? People can get pregnant at young ages. Should we drag out 16 year olds, and judge how effective of parents they will be at the age of 30? Or even 25?

Read my earlier bit. And why wait till 16? There were girls in my HS that were pregnant at 14.

Are you saying that people never change? Or should we get psychics to see who really makes the worst of parents?

No, people change, but they’ve got to prove that they have changed.

Ossai

 

[saizai]

For the record - there are reversible sterilization techniques. So keep that in mind when talking about it.

 

[Lonewulf]

For the record - there are reversible sterilization techniques. So keep that in mind when talking about it.

And who pays for it? Reversible sterilization techniques can't be cheap, and you need medical personnel to be able to handle it. This would also keep medical personnel from handling other important cases.

I just couldn't support forced sterilization.