U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2013, 03:26 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,586 posts, read 23,126,842 times
Reputation: 48552

Advertisements

quote=thethreefoldme;27890138]Just like infants who find themselves in a home being cared for by those who are not biologically related to them are at an increased risk?[/quote]

Studies have found that this refers to step parents etc.

I fully support home studies on "boy friends" girl friends: and new spouses. These people have no concern, or direct concern for the infants and children involved.

California, I believe has already begun legislation to this effect.

You can not twist this fact to suit your anti-adoption agenda,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2013, 03:33 PM
 
10,366 posts, read 8,363,565 times
Reputation: 19114
No derailing intended. Let me spell it out for you, as you seem to have failed to have understood my point:

Threefold, when you claim "You absolutely CANNOT equate abused adoptees to abused wives, or adoption to marriage. Abused wives were not GIVEN to those husbands as an infant or child...They were not forced to call their abusive siblings who have no relation to them as brother or sister", you overlook scenarios in which exactly what you describe has occurred repeatedly, to hundreds if not thousands of children and young women forced into marriage, as in the case of the FLDS (and I could cite other numerous groups), as part of that cult's habitual way of life and (pseudo) religious beliefs.

Therefore, your argument that abuse of this kind, abhorrent as it is in any case, is limited solely to children who were adopted and cannot be compared to the situation described above is clearly incorrect, possibly due to lack of information or misinformation.

Which casts doubt upon the value and veracity of the remainder of your claims.

Last edited by CraigCreek; 01-22-2013 at 03:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 03:52 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,855,795 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
I am not sure that anyone said that "most infants who are adopted at birth were abused before their adoption". I know that I didn't say it.

I certainly did not say that. I think that most infant adoption is a protective factor against abuse.
In other words, you are implying that those mothers who relinquished via domestic infant adoption would have abused their children if they had kept them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 03:55 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,855,795 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
quote=thethreefoldme;27890138]Just like infants who find themselves in a home being cared for by those who are not biologically related to them are at an increased risk?
Studies have found that this refers to step parents etc.

I fully support home studies on "boy friends" girl friends: and new spouses. These people have no concern, or direct concern for the infants and children involved.

California, I believe has already begun legislation to this effect.

You can not twist this fact to suit your anti-adoption agenda,[/quote]

Weren't you a new spouse to Warren - if I recall, he was married before and has a child from a previous marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:01 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,855,795 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
YES MIRRENC When "CHILDREN" not "INFANTS" become available for adoption. CHILDREN, got that?

Infants who stay in the homes of unwed, undereducated young women, when they did not plan the pregnancy find themselves at an increased risk for abuse says almost any study that I have ever read.
I previously quoted this article from the Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116267294

Quote:

Dr Tooley's study found that children with a step-parent were at least 17 times more likely to die from intentional violence or accident. A limited version of the study found that the rate could be as high as 77 times.

It found the risk was higher if there were no biological parents, such children being at least 22 times more prone. Most at risk were children under five.

Overall, Dr Tooley found that children with a single biological mother were no more at risk than children with both biological parents
Sounds to me like adopted children (i.e. no biological parents) are far more likely than single biological mothers (presumably here living by themselves or with their parents) to abuse their children. We do both agree with stepparents are more likely to abuse than biological parents - you're a stepparent aren't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:13 PM
 
16,568 posts, read 14,010,954 times
Reputation: 20518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Yes, please. I'd like to see this too.



Agree. Looking at abuse in terms of how a family began (bio, adoption, kinship, etc.) is not going to solve the problem of child abuse. People who abuse children will no doubt have certain characteristics that non-abusers do not have. Identifying what they are, and screening for them in BOTH biological and adoptive families is really what should be done. No child should be abused and assumptions about APs or Biological families should no longer be a reason to not screen for potential abusers.

*note: IMO, for biological families the screening need only be done for first-time parents.
Took what I said and went in a direction I completely disagree with.

The vast majority of "abusers" are people who are not evil, but are in fact lacking in tools, both physical and emotional, to deal with the inherent stress of parenting. Parents who are overwhelmed, under prepared, lack support, etc are more likely to make bad decisions when stressed out. Given the advantages in that area the average APs have (wealtier, older, more likely to be married etc) looking at why abuse occurs there despite screenings and advantages could explain what particular stresses we are not looking at.

I think it is pretty ironic and telling that some of the people who have whined about the tax drain of teen mothers on welfare as a reason to legally take their children without their consent are suddenly ok with creating a government agency of the scale and expense necessary to screen biological parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:16 PM
 
16,568 posts, read 14,010,954 times
Reputation: 20518
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
YES MIRRENC When "CHILDREN" not "INFANTS" become available for adoption. CHILDREN, got that?

Infants who stay in the homes of unwed, undereducated young women, when they did not plan the pregnancy find themselves at an increased risk for abuse says almost any study that I have ever read.
Since you are well read in this area, can you please give an example of a study supporting the idea that young mothers are more likely to abuse their children. Just a title, I can get a copy even if its not free.

Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: California
167 posts, read 153,038 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
No, you have that wrong. The frequent factor contributing to child abuse is "THE PRESENCE OF ONE UNRELATED ADULT IN THE HOUS AS IN A BOYFRIEND OR STEP PARENT< MARRIED or COMMON LAW.

NOT TWO ADULT ADOPTIVE PARENTS. Get your facts STRAIGHT!
Speaking of facts.....
Are you saying a single adult adoptive parent can't have the same contributing factors to child abuse-the presence of one unrelated adult in the house; boyfriend/girl friend, step-parent, etc.?

Btw, I'd like to see your study based on "facts" that prove what you have claimed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 04:59 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,586 posts, read 23,126,842 times
Reputation: 48552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avery_Harper View Post
Speaking of facts.....
Are you saying a single adult adoptive parent can't have the same contributing factors to child abuse-the presence of one unrelated adult in the house; boyfriend/girl friend, step-parent, etc.?

Btw, I'd like to see your study based on "facts" that prove what you have claimed.

1. No, I am not saying that.

2. You look them up if you want and doubt what I wrote. I am not you research assistant. Read something but out by mainstream Family Studies, Sociology, Social Psychology, Social Work and Psychology, not by your own support groups, or whatever you have or go to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2013, 05:06 PM
 
Location: California
167 posts, read 153,038 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
1. No, I am not saying that.
What are you saying then? If you can't provide a source, I'd say you're simply venting and pulling sources out of the air.
Quote:
2. You look them up if you want and doubt what I wrote. I am not you research assistant. Read something but out by mainstream Family Studies, Sociology, Social Psychology, Social Work and Psychology, not by your own support groups, or whatever you have or go to.
I did not make the claim, hence the onus is on you to provide the research or you could always admit that you have no source and made it all up. Btw, where I go or don't go is a red herring. Nice try though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:34 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top