• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

Skeptic Ginger said:
Where did you pick up that nonsensical narrative we don't grant "group" rights? Ever hear of the EEOC?

If the individual is a member of the group, you can't discriminate. You have a bizarre way of twisting the world to fit a strange reality.
Click to expand...

I don't see the EEOC citing lawmakers for creating "hate crimes" against specific "groups" nor for legislating for special "rights" for homosexuals nor for "affirmative action" laws for special "groups." The list is endless. And I'd like to see some EEOC action against the Black Congressional Caucus for blatant racial discrimination.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I see no reason a mother giving up an infant for adoption shouldn't have a say in who adopts the child. But when the agency restricts parents for religious reasons rather than parenting reasons it is wrong.
Click to expand...
You can't do one without the other. If you allow the parents to have a choice who gets adopted, you could be restricting people who want a child from getting one, for purely religious regions. Think, if a young Muslim couple wanted to adopt a child and there was a checkbox for the releasing parents that said "no Muslims", wouldn't it make it much harder, in a predominantly Christian country, for the Muslims to get a child than it would for Christian adopting parents?

eeyore1954 said:
I don't think it is selfish to try to get what you believe is the best for your child. Sometimes that is a determining factor in "releasing responsibility" .
Click to expand...
As I say, as a gut feeling, it is understandable, but it is not fair. I can understand if a person wanted something that is universally accepted as "good" such as "no drug users", but there is no religion that fits the bill. I realize that this may cause some reticent mothers (and occasionally fathers) to refuse to put up their child for adoption, but it is simply unfair to put such conditions on it. And that is wrong, IMO.
 
I don't think it is selfish to try to get what you believe is the best for your child. Sometimes that is a determining factor in "releasing responsibility" .


DavidJames said:
Maybe it's just me, but those two sentences don't seem to go together.
Click to expand...

Maybe I did not say it correctly.

When someone is considering whether to give a child up for adoption they usually want to do what they believe is best for their child. This may include beliefs about parenting , religious beliefs, ideas about education, etc.
If they are unable to find what they are looking for in an adoptive parent they may choose to keep the baby instead of "releasing responsibility".
 
eeyore1954 said:
When someone is considering whether to give a child up for adoption they usually want to do what they believe is best for their child. This may include beliefs about parenting , religious beliefs, ideas about education, etc.
If they are unable to find what they are looking for in an adoptive parent they may choose to keep the baby instead of "releasing responsibility".
Click to expand...
They may want what they perceive is best, but that doesn't mean it is best. Suppose a parent would only release the child if it was adopted by members of a snake-handling church? Essentially what a parent who makes such conditions is saying is, "I release this child, but I still want some control over its mind." One reason (not the only reason) there are adoption agencies rather than letting people sell or give away their own child is to prevent such prejudices.
 
Tricky said:
They may want what they perceive is best, but that doesn't mean it is best. Suppose a parent would only release the child if it was adopted by members of a snake-handling church? Essentially what a parent who makes such conditions is saying is, "I release this child, but I still want some control over its mind." One reason (not the only reason) there are adoption agencies rather than letting people sell or give away their own child is to prevent such prejudices.
Click to expand...

If you were giving a child up for adoption you would not try to have it done by people who have the same beliefs as to what is the proper way to raise a child?
 
eeyore1954 said:
If you were giving a child up for adoption you would not try to have it done by people who have the same beliefs as to what is the proper way to raise a child?
Click to expand...
My point is, in my mind, you forfeit any rights to influence how the child is raised once you agree to give it up.
 
eeyore1954 said:
If you were giving a child up for adoption you would not try to have it done by people who have the same beliefs as to what is the proper way to raise a child?
Click to expand...
Not religious beliefs, no. While my gut feeling is that I'd prefer it be in a secular household, I would NEVER try to tell someone else how to raise what is now their child, nor would I hobble the chances of the child's adoption by specifying that I wanted a non-religious upbringing. That would be unfair to everyone.
 
Tricky said:
Not religious beliefs, no. While my gut feeling is that I'd prefer it be in a secular household, I would NEVER try to tell someone else how to raise what is now their child, nor would I hobble the chances of the child's adoption by specifying that I wanted a non-religious upbringing. That would be unfair to everyone.
Click to expand...
One could say that once a person decides on adoption, they give up their right to choose how the child is raised.
 
joobz said:
One could say that once a person decides on adoption, they give up their right to choose how the child is raised.
Click to expand...

No that would be ridiculous to think. It is the family deciding on adoption that choose how their child should be raised, but they shouldn't cry foul if their expectations aren't met either. They should still have the ability to criticize and do what they legally can if they desire to do so. We do it all the time for all children, it's just not all that big a deal so no one seems to care other than when the gays are involved, and that's only because people are prejudiced and hateful against gay people.

The control is in who they choose to ship their kid off to and they should have some control over which family is selected. This isn't abandonment, it's adoption -.-
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
I don't see the EEOC citing lawmakers for creating "hate crimes" against specific "groups" nor for legislating for special "rights" for homosexuals nor for "affirmative action" laws for special "groups." The list is endless. And I'd like to see some EEOC action against the Black Congressional Caucus for blatant racial discrimination.
Click to expand...
Apparently you have a very poor understanding of the difference between legislation and committing hate crimes. Beyond that, you post makes little sense.
 
Tricky said:
You can't do one without the other. If you allow the parents to have a choice who gets adopted, you could be restricting people who want a child from getting one, for purely religious regions.
Click to expand...
And?

Tricky said:
Think, if a young Muslim couple wanted to adopt a child and there was a checkbox for the releasing parents that said "no Muslims", wouldn't it make it much harder, in a predominantly Christian country, for the Muslims to get a child than it would for Christian adopting parents?
Click to expand...
The difference, Tricky, is between parental rights (yes they exist even if you plan to relinquish them later) and the rights of a third party with no parental rights involved for the purpose of facilitating an adoption.


Tricky said:
As I say, as a gut feeling, it is understandable, but it is not fair. I can understand if a person wanted something that is universally accepted as "good" such as "no drug users", but there is no religion that fits the bill. I realize that this may cause some reticent mothers (and occasionally fathers) to refuse to put up their child for adoption, but it is simply unfair to put such conditions on it. And that is wrong, IMO.
Click to expand...
This is your personal opinion of the relinquishing parent, not a practical approach to the rights of the relinquishing parent vs the rights of the facilitating organization.
 
Tricky said:
They may want what they perceive is best, but that doesn't mean it is best. Suppose a parent would only release the child if it was adopted by members of a snake-handling church? Essentially what a parent who makes such conditions is saying is, "I release this child, but I still want some control over its mind." One reason (not the only reason) there are adoption agencies rather than letting people sell or give away their own child is to prevent such prejudices.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. I get to raise my son as an atheist whether you think that is best for my child or not.

I get your personal feelings here, but it's unusual for you to be missing the bigger picture like you are here.

Consider the Elian Gonzales case. It was clear to me from the outset that the rights of the father trumped all the outrage and anti-communist sentiments of the more distant relatives. I couldn't believe anyone was even questioning what the right thing to do was. You are doing the same here. You are deciding for a parent what is right for that parent's child (within reason, you can't beat and starve your kid) just because they are eventually going to relinquish those parental rights later. It doesn't work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom