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.
1. Possession of adoption paper to ensure permanence (despite the fact many children live in the same foster homes their entire lives).
2. Two parents.
Got it.
Still not sure why quality of potential home of adopted kids are not held to the same standard as every one else....
It is a matter of what choices are available at any given point in time. A single person is sitting in their living room thinking, I want a child. There is a child sitting in foster care in a less than ideal situation. That child can be adopted and make their situation better. The unconvinced child does not have a situation to improve. One has the ability to think to themselves, gee what is ideal for this child. There is nothing to improve upon at that point in time.
In my ideal world, ever child would have 2 or more parents, extended family who loves the pants off them out the wazoo. My ideal world does not exist in this real one.
Do you think its selfish for a man or woman to intentionally choose to have children and be single parents while intentionally choosing to deprive the kid of a mother/father. Before I didn't think much about it but then I realized if my mom or dad had me and chose not to let me have a mother/father in my life, I would resent them for doing that.
That is what you know as your family. I would bet children from single parent families know their parent loves them. I can ask you the same question you asked in another way. Are parents who happen to have disabilities selfish for having children? After all, the parent's condition is not the "norm", so those "poor children" are deprived. As long as a child is loved, cared for, and provided a safe environment they are not deprived.
Frankly, I think there's more selfishness going on in terms of the parent keeping a lover that's a horrible influence on the child. I can't count on one hand the number of friends or acquaintances who are ruining their child's life because they don't want to be "alone", or they're just so in love, etc. I was raised by just my mom, and I'm convinced (based on what she and others have said about my dad) I would've ended up worse, not better. As a parent, you should do all things consequential for the sake of your child. If your teammate is hurting your chances of success and there's no better way to correct it, get rid of them.
I'm pretty sure the quality of potential homes for adopted kids are held to a much higher standard than every one else, they have to be investigated thoroughly whereas any idiot can have a baby. It took my parents years to make the adoption of my brothers final.
Adoptive parents are screened just as foster parents are screened. Most people are aware that abuse/neglect still takes place in spite of screening. Adoptive parents are not less likely to abuse children than biological families -- that is a myth.
Results. Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 8.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6–21.5). Risk of maltreatment death also was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents (aOR: 4.7; 95% CI: 1.6–12.0), and in households with other adult relatives present (aOR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1–4.5). Risk of maltreatment death was not increased for children living with only 1 biological parent (aOR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8–2.0).
I agree that all children deserve to be raised well & loved by two parents, ideally their biological parents. Unfortunately this is not always possible & single parents can be better than two bad parents.
However,
Is it better for a child to be adopted by a single parent, or raised by the same two foster parents for the rest of their life? I think that depends on the people/child & is debatable.
Is it selfish to intentionally create a life without considering the negative impact it may have on them to not know who their mother/father or half their biological family is? IMO, I think so.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 05-04-2013 at 12:37 PM..
Do you think its selfish for a man or woman to intentionally choose to have children and be single parents while intentionally choosing to deprive the kid of a mother/father. Before I didn't think much about it but then I realized if my mom or dad had me and chose not to let me have a mother/father in my life, I would resent them for doing that.
It's not so much about selfishness, but about a changing society. Broadly speaking children do not benefit from that. A busy father that is not much at home, is still better then no father at all. Just my 2 cent. Criminal or abusive parents are not part of the discussion as the OP phrased it. The topic is about parents having children and planning to raise them alone from day 1.
Adoptive parents are screened just as foster parents are screened. Most people are aware that abuse/neglect still takes place in spite of screening. Adoptive parents are not less likely to abuse children than biological families -- that is a myth.
I agree that all children deserve to be raised well & loved by two parents, ideally their biological parents. Unfortunately this is not always possible & single parents can be better than two bad parents.
However,
Is it better for a child to be adopted by a single parent, or raised by the same two foster parents for the rest of their life? I think that depends on the people/child & is debatable.
Is it selfish to intentionally create a life without considering the negative impact it may have on them to not know who their mother/father or half their biological family is? IMO, I think so.
I think it would definitely be preferable for the child to be raised by the same two foster parents for the rest of their lives, thats why I asked how often that happens because my argument was based on my assumption that it doesn't happen often but I don't know the percentages.
I think it would definitely be preferable for the child to be raised by the same two foster parents for the rest of their lives, thats why I asked how often that happens because my argument was based on my assumption that it doesn't happen often but I don't know the percentages.
Well, I personally know a few sibling groups who were raised by the same foster family since they were young. But I admit I don't know the actual percentages we're discussing here. Stability is obviously very important for all children, so I understand where your concern is coming from. I'll try my best to find these statistics & I'll post them here if I find any.
I think in foster care children are usually removed from homes when there are problems, or when they are able to be reunited with their families. So I guess the next question then becomes -- is it best for adoptees to remain in their adoptive families even when there are problems? Because unlike foster children, there is no one checking up on them once those adoption papers are finalized.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 05-04-2013 at 01:14 PM..
I vote that it is selfish if they insist on making their own new kid (one way or another). But it doesn't seem selfish if they adopt.
Then again, often they may not realize how much they could be burdening family and friends.
Hate to sound like a right-winger, but the data on single-family households still overwhelmingly links the kid to much poorer success in life across the board (economically, happiness scales, health, etc.). And that is across demographics.
Society is built around the nuclear family model, that is why economics, happiness and health are such an issue.
Well, I personally know a few sibling groups who were raised by the same foster family since they were young. But I admit I don't know the actual percentages we're discussing here. Stability is obviously very important for all children, so I understand where your concern is coming from. I'll try my best to find these statistics & I'll post them here if I find any.
I think in foster care children are usually removed from homes when there are problems, or when they are able to be reunited with their families. So I guess the next question then becomes -- is it best for adoptees to remain in their adoptive families even when there are problems? Because unlike foster children, there is no one checking up on them once those adoption papers are finalized.
I'd appreciate it if you find any stats.
Frankly I think all families should be checked up on via public health services (child clinics which monitor health and development and can report any concerns to child welfare) but I know that would not be a popular way of doing things, at least in the US anyway.
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.
