Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on December 5, 2010 at 1:17am

If adopting were made easier and free, there might well be a surplus of prospective adoptive parents.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julien on December 5, 2010 at 1:27am

In my home country, as far as I know, you don't have to pay if you want to adopt, but the streets are still filled with "kids" (some of them could be my parents) that never got a chance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julien on December 5, 2010 at 1:24am

Qualifications for adopting a child in the United States

Excerpts:

- Federal Law requires prospective adoptive parents to be at least 21 years old and for an applicant's spouse to be a willing partner in the adoption petition. Adoption laws vary among states. Applicants should satisfy the requirements defined by their state laws, including completion of a home study assessment, good health records, stable employment and housing and, if married, to have been married for at least two years, a background check with no reports of crime, violence or incarcerations, and no recent substance abuse problems.

- All adoption placement services regard child abuse and neglect as serious obstacles to adoption. General requirements for those seeking to adopt children state that the applicants must have no history of crimes involving children. Additionally, applicants are asked to disclose any personal history of abuse that took place during their own childhoods, and to indicate whether they were or are currently involved in any type of domestic violence. If the history includes abuse or domestic violence, the applicant must be able to prove that the issues have been addressed and resolved with professional therapy.

- Currently, most states allow adoptions by unmarried individuals but not by unmarried couples. Because same-sex marriage is illegal in every state in America except Hawaii, same-sex couples cannot adopt a child in the United States unless the child already belongs to one of the two people. In that case, the non-custodial parent may petition the court to adopt the child of his or her partner, which would result in both adults having equal parenting rights and responsibilities. Efforts are underway to change the current legislature pertaining to adoptions by unmarried and same-sex couples.

They should really stop denying people their rights. Why shouldn't homosexual couples/persons or unmarried couples be able to adopt a child if they meet all the other requirements? You know, we think we're so smart and evolved, but we really have some pretty dumb laws/rulers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on December 9, 2010 at 10:04am

Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages; in fact, I think it was the first state to do so. So do Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., and sometimes California.

Why shouldn't homosexual couples/persons or unmarried couples be able to adopt a child if they meet all the other requirements? You know, we think we're so smart and evolved, but we really have some pretty dumb laws/rulers.

The problem is that the people who support such laws don't think we're evolved.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julien on December 11, 2010 at 6:37am

Well, people who think we're not evolved have a lot of proof (them and similar specimens) to back them up, so you can't really blame them. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julien on December 5, 2010 at 1:15am

As a result of requirements contained in their enabling charters, many sectarian adoption agencies will give priority to members of their religious group. Some of these sectarian agencies may even totally limit their adoption placements to members of their own group. - This is just wrong...

Source

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on December 9, 2010 at 10:28am

I would never bring a child into this shitty world.

I don't find it to be so shitty, and I certainly am glad that I was born. Moreover, I can provide for a sufficient quality of life for my children so that they have a good chance of not viewing life that way either (but you never know - that's for them to decide).

And don't you tell me that this should be just my opinion, and that you respect it and I should respect whatever other people decide

Well, it is just your opinion, I do respect it, and it would be better for you to respect other people's decisions that have nothing to do with you, because otherwise you're behaving like the religious bigots who oppose adoption by homosexual couples, but of course you're free not to.


We could solve problems like famine, overpopulation, and many others, only if we'd care a little more.

Famine will not be solved by adoption, unless you think that all those starving children in, e.g., Africa, are unwanted. I assure you that many of them are loved by their parents. OTOH, famine could be eradicated in this world (there's certainly enough food and wealth) but for political and economic systems.

As for overpopulation, as countries undergo economic and women's rights development, the number of children that women elect to have falls dramatically. Indeed, in most of the developed world, there is the opposite problem, with the number of children per family falling below the level needed to sustain current population levels. Even worse, this leads to a crisis of an aging population with insufficient workers to support them. Adoption won't solve this problem, because it is largely one of a falling desire (or in some cases, financial ability) for people to raise children, not an inability to produce them. As the third world develops, overpopulation will naturally cease to be a concern.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page