Adoption vs. biological conception

[remix17]

This is a split from the homosexuality thread. I didn't want to go off topic, so I decided to create a new thread.

I'm just going to quote myself:

It's interesting to note however that adopting couples have to go though a lot of trouble (interviews, financial, medical screening, criminal record checks) before they can even be allowed to adopt. Yet couples who plan to conceive by natural means never need to worry about such things. When I suggest that all potential parents need to be assessed for suitability before given permission to have children, they call me names, yet parents who plan to adopt have to go through exactly the same process.

What do people think?

[htwho]

^

Assessing a couple to allow them to conceive is a horrible idea. Talk about infringing on rights.

If I had the choice between adoption and biological conception, then I would actually go for biological conception because of my idea of survival of the fittest. I want to pass my genes and that is what is really important to me.

[vincent]

Of course all parents should be screened. Reason being is that no two couples are the same, nor their lifestyle(s). As i said before, Adoption should be on a case by case basis. There's pros and cons to both.

[htwho]

"Of course all parents should be screened"

That's giving the state or federal government too much control of my freedom. It sounds like it can be abused. The ideology of people being screen and having to pass a fertility test is exactly the idea of "Eugenics." It was abused and people who were mentally handicapped (Down syndrome, etc. ) were sent to institutions and sterilized! That's so wrong! What happens when the government decides only blue eyes and blond hair should only be bred through? Or even black hair and brown eyes? We have our freedom and the idea of Eugenics can be abused just like Hitler and the American government did almost a century ago.

[swuzzlebum]

No, there should not be screening for biological parents. There is a huge difference between the government being responsible in finding a home for a child and controlling who can and cannot have children. As htwho said, it's dangerously close to eugenics.

[remix17]

"Of course all parents should be screened"

That's giving the state or federal government too much control of my freedom. It sounds like it can be abused. The ideology of people being screen and having to pass a fertility test is exactly the idea of "Eugenics." It was abused and people who were mentally handicapped (Down syndrome, etc. ) were sent to institutions and sterilized! That's so wrong! What happens when the government decides only blue eyes and blond hair should only be bred through? Or even black hair and brown eyes? We have our freedom and the idea of Eugenics can be abused just like Hitler and the American government did almost a century ago.

Can we ever have an argument that isn't based on far-fetched assumptions (blue eyes? cmon!) Can we just focus on the matter at hand? Parents applying for adoption are screened. Factors such as mental, financial capacity, criminal records are considered. Parents who plan to conceive through biological means are not required to be screened for parental suitability. Hypocrisy or not? Freedom is a good thing to have, but in the society freedoms have to be restricted. And don't go off-topic. We are not talking about mentally-handicapped or eugenics. We are not selecting for specific traits. We are simply protecting potential children from parents who will not be able to provide them with the things they need, or even abuse them.

[vincent]

"Of course all parents should be screened"

That's giving the state or federal government too much control of my freedom. It sounds like it can be abused. The ideology of people being screen and having to pass a fertility test is exactly the idea of "Eugenics." It was abused and people who were mentally handicapped (Down syndrome, etc. ) were sent to institutions and sterilized! That's so wrong! What happens when the government decides only blue eyes and blond hair should only be bred through? Or even black hair and brown eyes? We have our freedom and the idea of Eugenics can be abused just like Hitler and the American government did almost a century ago.

No, there should not be screening for biological parents. There is a huge difference between the government being responsible in finding a home for a child and controlling who can and cannot have children. As htwho said, it's dangerously close to eugenics.

I meant to state, adopting parents..

[remix17]

I meant to state, adopting parents..

What about non-adoptive parents? That's the reason I created the topic: I observe double standard.

[swuzzlebum]

I meant to state, adopting parents..

That's what I thought you meant, sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you :p

The main problem with this idea is the only possible way to enforce it is sterilization. You can't prevent people from having kids if they want them, and if they do have them, the only way to "fix" it would be to do what China has done and take away children that aren't "supposed" to be there from their biological parents, which is something I recall you saying was unhealthy in the Homosexuality thread.

[htwho]

Double standard? What the hell? Are you kidding me?!?! Remix, have you even opened up a history book and read about eugenics? I used the "blue eyes" as an argument since Hitler pushed that in his agenda to clean Germany and his empire of handicaps, "sick" and "savage" races. It's not a double standard. You need to see what happens if such a law is passed. It's going to be horrible.

[vincent]

What about non-adoptive parents? That's the reason I created the topic: I observe double standard.

It's a tricky one.

1) The govt can't know when one is going to get pregnant

2) The Gov't isn't and shouldn't be this all-seeing eye in the sky..

3) If any intervention is to be done, perhaps the hospitals can be in touch with officials and report any suspicous characteristics about said couple(s). But this is a tightrope to walk.

[htwho]

^ Invasion of Privacy.

Why do we have to depend on the government? Are we not responsible for our own actions? What happened to personal responsibility and believing in people? So far the government has proven time and time again that it is incapable of handling foreign affairs and domestic problems. They can't even handle social security!

[remix17]

That's what I thought you meant, sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you :p

The main problem with this idea is the only possible way to enforce it is sterilization. You can't prevent people from having kids if they want them, and if they do have them, the only way to "fix" it would be to do what China has done and take away children that aren't "supposed" to be there from their biological parents, which is something I recall you saying was unhealthy in the Homosexuality thread.

I was not considering the practical means of enforcing this. So let's not go there. Let's just discuss this from a theoretical point of view.

Double standard? What the hell? Are you kidding me?!?! Remix, have you even opened up a history book and read about eugenics? I used the "blue eyes" as an argument since Hitler pushed that in his agenda to clean Germany and his empire of handicaps, "sick" and "savage" races. It's not a double standard. You need to see what happens if such a law is passed. It's going to be horrible.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or are you purposely leading this discussion where you want it to go?

Double standard exists because adoptive parents are required to be screened for parental suitability, while biological parents are not.

[htwho]

Adoption and Natural Birth are two completely different issues though. Adoption is taking someone from a foster home or another family. Natural Birth is your own gawd given right.

If you let a drug lord have a child then fine, it's his responsibility but if you allow him to adopt a child, then you definitely need to check if you're putting SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD WHO THE FOSTER CARE PROMISED TO PUT IN GOOD HANDS, into good hands.

[remix17]

If you let a drug lord have a child then fine, it's his responsibility but if you allow him to adopt a child, then you definitely need to check if you're putting SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD WHO THE FOSTER CARE PROMISED TO PUT IN GOOD HANDS, into good hands.

That's my point! Drug lords shouldn't be allowed to have children. A child is not a property of his/her parents. A government has the right to intervene when a child is abused or mistreated by his parents, and we DON'T say "parents should treat their children as they see fit and we as a society shouldn't have a say in this." Instead we find that it IS our moral obligation to step in and essentially violate private affairs. So why not step in and say "you are not qualified to have children; you can't provide them with loving, healthy and stable environment".

And what difference does it make if a child comes from another home or your wife's uterus? He's not anyone's property, he's a person with rights. He needs the same amount of attention and the same amount of love.

[htwho]

It is not legal to do that and I think it's morally wrong for other people to check on what the person is doing. I will move out of this country if such a law is put into effect because it is against the ideology of the Founding Fathers and against the American ideology of personal freedom and privacy. Simple as that. If people want that type of moral obligation thing, then go to another country. Not in America.

[remix17]

It is not legal to do that and I think it's morally wrong for other people to check on what the person is doing. I will move out of this country if such a law is put into effect because it is against the ideology of the Founding Fathers and against the American ideology of personal freedom and privacy. Simple as that. If people want that type of moral obligation thing, then go to another country. Not in America.

But that is exactly my point! We already live in such a state. Government does intervene when children are abused or mistreated! Some people loose parental rights altogether, children are sent to foster homes, etc. and I'm saying we can avoid this by restricting parental rights. It's a prevention of bad parenting before bad parenting starts. We already prevent bad parenting, we just wait until children are abused or mistreated, as oppose to it before it even starts.

[htwho]

^ Well, I want to reverse all of that. I don't want my government do be part of my life. They should be limited. It's up to the states to decide what to do but it definitely is not up to the government. Now you understand why I support the presidential candidate in my sig.

Majority of federal Government policies are inefficient and full of loopholes.

[remix17]

^ Well, I want to reverse all of that. I don't want my government do be part of my life. They should be limited. It's up to the states to decide what to do but it definitely is not up to the government. Now you understand why I support the presidential candidate in my sig.

Majority of federal Government policies are inefficient and full of loopholes.

So you are saying if a child is being sexually abused by his parents, the authorities shouldn't have the right to step in?

[htwho]

^

No, I didn't say that. I support the police in prosecuting and punishing those people. I just don't support the idea that you should screen people because that's an impossible task. That's like screening people for guns when they have a constitutional right to bear arms.

[remix17]

^

No, I didn't say that. I support the police in prosecuting and punishing those people. I just don't support the idea that you should screen people because that's an impossible task. That's like screening people for guns when they have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Mental health check

Criminal background check

Financial capacity check

Testing for drugs

Seems fairly possible...

It's interesting that we are tested for many of these things when we apply for a job, or college, but when we decide to bring another human being into the world all of these things are ignored. And ironically raising a child carries much more responsibility and is far more important than your job as a sales clerk.

[htwho]

True but those things aren't part of the natural rights we are given. Sure you can debate what our natural rights are but I believe that reproduction is a natural right.

Companies wouldn't do those checks if those factors weren't harmful to their sales.

[remix17]

True but those things aren't part of the natural rights we are given. Sure you can debate what our natural rights are but I believe that reproduction is a natural right.

Companies wouldn't do those checks if those factors weren't harmful to their sales.

Reproduction is a natural right, but we live in a civilized society where natural rights need to be restricted in order to prevent chaos and create progress. I can propose just as easily that murder and rape are natural rights as well.

[htwho]

^ That's a dangerous line to walk on. History has shown that. To provide chaos and create progress, police states rose to power.

Murder and rape are not natural rights since they don't provide equality.

[remix17]

^ That's a dangerous line to walk on. History has shown that. To provide chaos and create progress, police states rose to power.

Murder and rape are not natural rights since they don't provide equality.

What do you mean they don't provide equality? And who put you in charge of deciding what is and what isn't a natural right? What makes your definition any better than mine?