Adoption vs. biological conception

[tao muon]

I see no problem with screening adoptive parents and no problem not screening natural / biological parents.

Screening adoptive parents can help ensure that the parents will be able to provide for the child. "Wait a minute..." you say. And I interrupt and say it is the right of people to procreate- government should not be involved in deciding who can or can't have children (naturally, I add). It is also the right of the child to be raised by natural parents, if at all possible. Many of the children placed for adoption are there because their natural parents weren't able to properly rear them. So, at this point in their life, the child(ren)'s rights have to have some safeguards. A mistake was made once, but shouldn't happen again. Hopefully, the family steps in and takes the necessary steps to protect the child. Failing that, this is where I believe the government, or at least the community, should intervene.

Maybe the child's father (or mother) was killed, there are no grandparents or other family, and the mother (or father) couldn't raise the child and put the child up for adoption. Maybe it was a teen pregnancy and the mother made the choice. Are those bad things? I think they're both sad, but not bad- the family should step in, if there is one. What about in cases of rape where the mother keeps it then neglects the child? What about child abuse? These are examples of when the child should be adopted out- as far away from the situation as possible. People have the right to procreate, but do not have the right to take whichever child they choose and raise him/her/them as their own. The child(ren) being adopted out were put in that program for a reason. So, screen the adopting parents and guarantee that what happened before won't happen again.

And, for the love of life, be tactful about discussing the situation with the children. Protecting the child does not mean you have to lie or cover up what has happened. Lies to children beget hate by children. Children with hate... well... I'm not going there.

*edit:

I'm still on the fence about homosexual parenting. However, since homosexual partners are not capable of procreation without a third party, I will probably argue that they need screened as well, at least to the point of determining the household environment is stable enough to raise a child- emotionally and financially well bonded. Other than that, if they are willing and able to bring another life into the house, then they should be able to do so, but with oversight. Too many technicalities to go into here.

*2nd edit:

Thanks htwho. I hope I didn't mess up your point with my 1st edit. :)

Edited August 9, 2007 by tao muon

[htwho]

Natural rights allow humans to thrive and not create choas by holding fundamental values. Strip humans of civilizations. Equality must always be present. Women, men, children should all have the same rights. Rape puts one party at a disadvantage due to NO CONSENT. That's what separates humans from other animals. Our ability to love and our compassion. We work as a team, as equals to achieve a goal. That's how we survived. In modern society, that has changed but those core natural rights should remain. The right to procreate.

Edit: Tao, FANTASTIC ANSWER. I was trying to convey that message but I guess I missed certain points. Perfect message! Thank you.

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

I see your point remix, but... I agree with tao muon in terms of why adoptive parents need to be screened. If the state/community has the responsibility to find a child a home, then it should do it's utmost to find the best home, just like any (normal) parent will do the best for their children.

I think you should think about the children of these "unsuitable" parents and how they would feel about it. I also think it unfair and unwise to try to judge the ability of someone to parent based on your own morals/world view.

Lots of poor people are good parents, indeed the majority of humanity seems to live in poverty. Lots of people who were involved in crime or drugs clean themselves up and make good parents. Anyone can keep off the drugs long enough to pass the tests and go straight back to them when they've got the baby.

Mental stability - harder to judge of course. Most mental illness is not of the paranoid, murderous schizophrenic variety though.

Finally, lots of people would pass your criteria but still make neglectful and abusive parents, while lots of potentially excellent parents would be prevented from having children. Preventing someone from conceiving naturally is denying them a very basic right; the point of their existence. Adoption is different, it doesn't involve denying, but giving someone the chance to raise a child they didn't originally have any right to.

I think a lot of people would be appalled at the idea of screening people because it scares them. For me, I think it would cause more problems than it would solve.

[Axon]

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.

A government should have no position of authority in determining whether or not two people can procreate, no matter the scenario.

For the sake of devil's advocate, why would a person's job define their parenting abilities? Does a coal miner raise their child better or worse than a professional athlete? How about a doctor versus lawyer? That's always a classic; battle of the professionals. Riddle me this, who cares about the well being of their child more, President and CEO of a fortune 500 company or single mother working three jobs just to make ends meet?

It's a very slippery slope once you start drawing the line on who can procreate and who can't. Giving a government the (hypothetical) ability to selectively breed an entire population is a scary notion.

There'll be a revolution in any democratic society long before the right to have children could be taken away from the masses.

-Ax

[remix17]

A government should have no position of authority in determining whether or not two people can procreate, no matter the scenario.

For the sake of devil's advocate, why would a person's job define their parenting abilities? Does a coal miner raise their child better or worse than a professional athlete? How about a doctor versus lawyer? That's always a classic; battle of the professionals. Riddle me this, who cares about the well being of their child more, President and CEO of a fortune 500 company or single mother working three jobs just to make ends meet?

It's a very slippery slope once you start drawing the line on who can procreate and who can't. Giving a government the (hypothetical) ability to selectively breed an entire population is a scary notion.

There'll be a revolution in any democratic society long before the right to have children could be taken away from the masses.

-Ax

Just for the record I never included someone's profession as a qualifier for parenthood. I think you misread my points.

...

Anyway after tao muon's and Persephone's posts, I'm starting to see that maybe I took this a bit too far. Perhaps there is no double standard after all. And I guess you guys are right, maybe it would cause more problems than it would attempt to solve. I'm still not 100% convinced, but I definitely don't feel as strongly about this now.

[swuzzlebum]

Remix, I think you were just having a gut reaction to the fact that there are "qualifications" for someone who wants to take on parenting someone else's child. Adoption is a legal issue; the actual process of conceiving a child is not. I can see why you would make that argument, but like everyone's said the negative outweighs the positive.

[remix17]

Remix, I think you were just having a gut reaction to the fact that there are "qualifications" for someone who wants to take on parenting someone else's child. Adoption is a legal issue; the actual process of conceiving a child is not. I can see why you would make that argument, but like everyone's said the negative outweighs the positive.

Yeah and I also didn't consider the fact that when it comes to adoption, competition becomes a factor. Screening would determine which parents have the best qualification. Another reason I was pushing for screening is due to all the horror news stories I come across regularly about parents mistreating, abusing or otherwise neglecting their children. If only there was a way to determine with absolute certainty who these parents are... But I guess as it stands now there are no practical means of making it happen. I guess my argument is in the realm of pure theory with no objective or fair means of enforcement.

[swuzzlebum]

Yeah and I also didn't consider the fact that when it comes to adoption, competition becomes a factor. Screening would determine which parents have the best qualification. Another reason I was pushing for screening is due to all the horror news stories I come across regularly about parents mistreating, abusing or otherwise neglecting their children. If only there was a way to determine with absolute certainty who these parents are... But I guess as it stands now there are no practical means for making it happen. I guess my argument is in the realm of pure theory with no practical or fair means of enforcement.

I think everyone wishes that there was a foolproof way to prevent child abuse. Your idea did lead to an interesting argument though!

[remix17]

I think everyone wishes that there was a foolproof way to prevent child abuse. Your idea did lead to an interesting argument though!

Thanks. I'm glad you guys contributed :)

[htwho]

^ Smaller government for the win!

[Samn9]

Maybe it's better to take children away from unsuitable parents who will harm the child rather than screening them all before they got pregnant.