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.
I like this post! I feel like it shows how we feel about educated people, there were only a few posts that said the parents should be background checked….then if all was well they could adopt the baby. Others just assumed due to their education that they were fit to provide a better life for the baby. I straddle the fence on that....most people with Doctorate degrees are very intelligent, organized, great members of society, financially stable, and well fit to take care of a child. Is this because it takes great discipline to obtain that type of degree? While on the other hand some people with Doctorates are ill mannered, intelligent (but use it in all the wrong ways), or just not fit to have a child. For the original question I like to think what's best for the child, and that seems to be the couple if they get a background check 1st!
I would pick the gay couple with two caveats: That they go through the same checks and social worker visits that a couple going through an agency have to do and that the adoption be "open" so that the mother and grandmother can continue to have contact with the child over the years.
I like this post! I feel like it shows how we feel about educated people, there were only a few posts that said the parents should be background checked….then if all was well they could adopt the baby. Others just assumed due to their education that they were fit to provide a better life for the baby. I straddle the fence on that....most people with Doctorate degrees are very intelligent, organized, great members of society, financially stable, and well fit to take care of a child. Is this because it takes great discipline to obtain that type of degree? While on the other hand some people with Doctorates are ill mannered, intelligent (but use it in all the wrong ways), or just not fit to have a child. For the original question I like to think what's best for the child, and that seems to be the couple if they get a background check 1st!
That's my issue with this. Why should we only give a background check to adoptive parents, while not doing the same for biological parents?
We can all cite examples of atrocities committed by the hands of both adoptive and biological parents. Why does our society seem to consider those who want to adopt a baby to be potentially suspicious, but not someone who wants to create a baby from scratch?
I ran this question by everyone as an experiment to get a national feel for things. Here in California many would have no problem with a gay couple adopting a child. I have no problem with it. Someone mentioned that the drugged out daughter could get pregnant again. She did and the couple also addopted the baby girl. Both brother and sister are being raised by the couple. The grandmother has been allowed to be a part of their life. One year the couple flew her out to visit them. The grandmother who is a co-worker is happy with the care that her grand kids are getting. She had her concerns as a conservative older woman but has enjoyed the association that she has had with this couple and the interaction that she has had with her grandkids.
During a discusion at work a co-worker that grew up in Iran stated that anything is better than having a child raised by gay people. That is the view of his upbringing. I wanted to see if others felt the same way.
It is true that this should not be an issue. But it was part of the information known in the original conversation, and as the OP noted, it was definitely an issue for one person. It's just full disclosure of all known variables.
I understand that. But the point of the OP was to present a choice - that for some people would mean picking the lesser of two evils. Being gay shouldn't matter, when it comes to choosing a stable loving home over a highly dysfunctional and chaotic one, the fact that the adoptive parents are gay should be way down on the list of need to know facts about them as potential parents.
If the OP's choices were - drug addict and grandma who can't cope - or let's see... two doctors - would there even be a discussion?
That's my issue with this. Why should we only give a background check to adoptive parents, while not doing the same for biological parents?
We can all cite examples of atrocities committed by the hands of both adoptive and biological parents. Why does our society seem to consider those who want to adopt a baby to be potentially suspicious, but not someone who wants to create a baby from scratch?
Mainly because our bodies are considered sovereign and you'd be hard pressed to pass laws that take that away, especially to such an enormous degree. Think of the logistics of it. How would you track who is pregnant? Doctor visits? Women would just not go to the doctor. Forced contraception or sterilization with permits to procreate? Good luck getting that one off the ground. And then what do you do with an unfit mother? Hold her down and abort the baby? Take it away and add it to an already overtaxed system?
There are downsides to having rights and personal freedoms, definitely. I don't think a Brave New World with an even more intrusive nanny government is the answer, however. That just invites different problems.
As to the OP, I like the suggestion that the doctor couple undergoes a background check. It's a false dichotomy, though--there are other choices that the mother can make. But ultimately nobody can make her give up her baby unless she is deemed unfit. It's not like Grandma can take the baby away and hand it over to her friends without Mom's consent. And if CPS does get involved because Mom is an irresponsible druggie, I don't think there's any telling where the baby will end up.
Mainly because our bodies are considered sovereign and you'd be hard pressed to pass laws that take that away, especially to such an enormous degree. Think of the logistics of it. How would you track who is pregnant? Doctor visits? Women would just not go to the doctor. Forced contraception or sterilization with permits to procreate? Good luck getting that one off the ground. And then what do you do with an unfit mother? Hold her down and abort the baby? Take it away and add it to an already overtaxed system?
There are downsides to having rights and personal freedoms, definitely. I don't think a Brave New World with an even more intrusive nanny government is the answer, however. That just invites different problems.
As to the OP, I like the suggestion that the doctor couple undergoes a background check. It's a false dichotomy, though--there are other choices that the mother can make. But ultimately nobody can make her give up her baby unless she is deemed unfit. It's not like Grandma can take the baby away and hand it over to her friends without Mom's consent. And if CPS does get involved because Mom is an irresponsible druggie, I don't think there's any telling where the baby will end up.
Correct. I was pointing our the unfairness of the background check only on adoptive aprents, since we know some children are not safer in their biological parents' hands.
Thanks for giving the resolution SOON2B. Personally, I would choose the gay couple, but as others have said do it through the appropriate channels with background checks and make it an open adoption. These situation all come down to what's best for the child and that is easily the best option.
I ran this question by everyone as an experiment to get a national feel for things. Here in California many would have no problem with a gay couple adopting a child. I have no problem with it. Someone mentioned that the drugged out daughter could get pregnant again. She did and the couple also addopted the baby girl. Both brother and sister are being raised by the couple. The grandmother has been allowed to be a part of their life. One year the couple flew her out to visit them. The grandmother who is a co-worker is happy with the care that her grand kids are getting. She had her concerns as a conservative older woman but has enjoyed the association that she has had with this couple and the interaction that she has had with her grandkids.
During a discusion at work a co-worker that grew up in Iran stated that anything is better than having a child raised by gay people. That is the view of his upbringing. I wanted to see if others felt the same way.
So glad to hear things are going so well, and especially that the children are together.
I would pick the gay couple with two caveats: That they go through the same checks and social worker visits that a couple going through an agency have to do and that the adoption be "open" so that the mother and grandmother can continue to have contact with the child over the years.
Marlow, the only problem with that would be that the addict daughter would never stop extorting the adoptive couple for money. They would be at her mercy. If they tried to stop the extortion she would threaten to take the child back legally or by kidnapping, threaten to kill them or accuse them publicly of child abuse.
And don't let her decide she wants her baby back. She will behave as if they were only babysitting the child for all that time and now they can give it back and go away. They're financial and emotional investment be damned!
You can't invite someone who isn't rational and in control of themselves into your life because they will bring all their nightmarish crap with them. We're lucky the baby is escaping!
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.
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.
