Many Adopters OBSESS about kids

Many Adopters OBSESS about kids.
Why is this a surprise?

This is why BABY SELLING is a lucrative market.

IS your criteria for better parents WEALTH?

On Feb 12, 6:35 pm, "0:-" wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070212/...e_parents;_ylt...

http://tinyurl.com/29dm9h

Yahoo! News
Study: adoptive parents get high marks

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer2 hours, 57 minutes ago

Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their
children than biological parents, according to a new national study
challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage
and gay adoption.

The study, published in the new issue of the American Sociological
Review, found that couples who adopt spend more money on their
children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them,
eating together and talking with them about their problems.

"One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really
want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them,"
Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, one of the study's three
co-authors, said in a telephone interview Monday.

"Adoptive parents face a culture where, to many other people, adoption
is not real parenthood," Powell said. "What they're trying to do is
compensate. ... They recognize the barriers they face, and it sets the
stage for them to be better parents."

Powell and his colleagues examined data from 13,000 households with
first-graders in the family. The data was part of a detailed survey
called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education and other agencies.

The researchers said 161 families in the survey were headed by two
adoptive parents, and they rated better overall than families with
biological parents on an array of criteria - including helping with
homework, parental involvement in school, exposure to cultural
activities and family attendance at religious services. The only
category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of
talking with parents of other children.

The researchers noted that adoptive couples, in general, were older
and wealthier than biological parents, but said the adoptive parents
still had an advantage - albeit smaller - when the data was reanalyzed
to account for income inequality.

In particular, the researchers said, adoptive parents had a pronounced
edge over single-parent and stepparent families.

The researchers said their findings call into question the long-
standing argument that children are best off with their biological
parents. Such arguments were included in state Supreme Court rulings
last year in New York and Washington that upheld laws against same-sex
marriage.

The researchers said gay and lesbian parents may react to
discrimination by taking extra, compensatory steps to promote their
children's welfare.

"Ironically, the same social context that creates struggles for these
alternative families may also set the stage for them to excel in some
measures of parenting," the study concluded.

An opponent of same-sex marriage, Peter Sprigg of the conservative
Family Research Council, noted that the study focused on male/female
adoptive couples, not on same-sex couples, and he questioned whether
it shed any new light on adoptive parenting by gays.

Sprigg, the research council's vice president for policy, said he
warmly supports adoption, but believes it is best undertaken by
married, heterosexual couples.

Another conservative analyst, psychologist Bill Maier of Focus on the
Family, said the authors of the new study seemed to be pursuing a
political agenda in support of gay marriage.

"Put simply, gay adoption creates families that are motherless or
fatherless by design, permanently depriving children of either a
mother or a father," Maier said.

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption
Institute, welcomed the study's findings, but cautioned against
possibly exaggerated interpretations of it.

"It's an affirmation that there are all sorts of families that are
good for kids," he said. "Adoptive parents aren't less good or better.
They just bring different benefits to the table. In terms of how
families are formed, it should be a level playing field."

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Spencer
Foundation and the American Educational Research Association. Powell's
co-authors were Laura Hamilton, a doctoral student at Indiana
University, and Simon Cheng, a sociology professor at the University
of Connecticut.

___-

On the net:

The study:http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/
Feb07ASRAdoption.pdf.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
information contained in the AP News report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written
authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

On Feb 13, 9:49 am, "Greegor" wrote:

Many Adopters OBSESS about kids.

Which or what information in the article led you to that conclusion?

And what exactly do you mean by "OBSESS?"

Cold showers, shampoo rinsing, that sort of obsess?

Why is this a surprise?

Which information, please?


This is why BABY SELLING is a lucrative market.


It is? From the state?

It's illegal to sell a baby in the U.S., and most western nations.

IS your criteria for better parents WEALTH?

Is yours? Why would one thing be, and not another?

It doesn't hurt though, apprently. 0;]

Is that your real reason for suing Iowa, to give the little girl a
better life?





On Feb 12, 6:35 pm, "0:-" wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070212/...e_parents;_ylt...

http://tinyurl.com/29dm9h

Yahoo! News
Study: adoptive parents get high marks

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer2 hours, 57 minutes ago

Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their
children than biological parents, according to a new national study
challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage
and gay adoption.

The study, published in the new issue of the American Sociological
Review, found that couples who adopt spend more money on their
children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them,
eating together and talking with them about their problems.

"One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really
want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them,"
Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, one of the study's three
co-authors, said in a telephone interview Monday.

"Adoptive parents face a culture where, to many other people, adoption
is not real parenthood," Powell said. "What they're trying to do is
compensate. ... They recognize the barriers they face, and it sets the
stage for them to be better parents."

Powell and his colleagues examined data from 13,000 households with
first-graders in the family. The data was part of a detailed survey
called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education and other agencies.

The researchers said 161 families in the survey were headed by two
adoptive parents, and they rated better overall than families with
biological parents on an array of criteria - including helping with
homework, parental involvement in school, exposure to cultural
activities and family attendance at religious services. The only
category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of
talking with parents of other children.

The researchers noted that adoptive couples, in general, were older
and wealthier than biological parents, but said the adoptive parents
still had an advantage - albeit smaller - when the data was reanalyzed
to account for income inequality.

In particular, the researchers said, adoptive parents had a pronounced
edge over single-parent and stepparent families.

The researchers said their findings call into question the long-
standing argument that children are best off with their biological
parents. Such arguments were included in state Supreme Court rulings
last year in New York and Washington that upheld laws against same-sex
marriage.

The researchers said gay and lesbian parents may react to
discrimination by taking extra, compensatory steps to promote their
children's welfare.

"Ironically, the same social context that creates struggles for these
alternative families may also set the stage for them to excel in some
measures of parenting," the study concluded.

An opponent of same-sex marriage, Peter Sprigg of the conservative
Family Research Council, noted that the study focused on male/female
adoptive couples, not on same-sex couples, and he questioned whether
it shed any new light on adoptive parenting by gays.

Sprigg, the research council's vice president for policy, said he
warmly supports adoption, but believes it is best undertaken by
married, heterosexual couples.

Another conservative analyst, psychologist Bill Maier of Focus on the
Family, said the authors of the new study seemed to be pursuing a
political agenda in support of gay marriage.

"Put simply, gay adoption creates families that are motherless or
fatherless by design, permanently depriving children of either a
mother or a father," Maier said.

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption
Institute, welcomed the study's findings, but cautioned against
possibly exaggerated interpretations of it.

"It's an affirmation that there are all sorts of families that are
good for kids," he said. "Adoptive parents aren't less good or better.
They just bring different benefits to the table. In terms of how
families are formed, it should be a level playing field."

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Spencer
Foundation and the American Educational Research Association. Powell's
co-authors were Laura Hamilton, a doctoral student at Indiana
University, and Simon Cheng, a sociology professor at the University
of Connecticut.

___-

On the net:

The study:http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/
Feb07ASRAdoption.pdf.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
information contained in the AP News report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written
authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

On Feb 13, 12:49 pm, "Greegor" wrote:
Many Adopters OBSESS about kids.

Yes, some actually place a high value their kids. Beats neglect and
abuse, hands down.

Why is this a surprise?

It's not to me.

This is why BABY SELLING is a lucrative market.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, I guess.

IS your criteria for better parents WEALTH?

Children are expensive little buggers. It helps to have a job to
provide even the most basic of needs: a safe home, food, clothing,
and educational opportunity. Good parents (adoptive or biological)
put a high priority on taking care of basic needs.

Do you really not understand this? Or should I type a little slower
for you?

Dad

On Tuesday 13 February 2007 10:49 am, Greegor ranted on thusly:

Many Adopters OBSESS about kids.

Obsess? How do you get obsess out of that article? How is giving a child
love and attention obsession? I thought this was a very heart-warming
story. It shows that being raised by adoptive parents can be as good as
birth parents. And isn't that a good thing?

Disclosu My wife and I have a three-year old son (biological) and are
working on adopting a 10-month old daughter.

--
Michael Fierro (aka Biffster)
http://aperfectworld.biffster.org Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1
--
"Aren't YOU going to say that it's bigger on the inside than it is on
the outside? Everybody else does." - Doctor Who

Where are you buying your child from Michael?
Did you see Donald L. Fisher's advertising
about good used mixed race babies?
Or are you going for an import?

What's the price tag?

On Feb 13, 5:13 pm, "Greegor" wrote:
Where are you buying your child from Michael?
Did you see Donald L. Fisher's advertising
about good used mixed race babies?
Or are you going for an import?

What's the price tag?


See what parents get that come here, Michael?

This is a little ****ant that claims to be a parent's rights
advocate.

Can you believe it?

Kane

Kane wrote
See what parents get that come here, Michael?

This is a little ****ant that claims to be a parent's rights
advocate.

Can you believe it?

Kane is a former CPS caseworker from Oregon and a BLOG Lobbyist for
CPS.
Maybe you should check out his web pages advertising kids.

On 13 Feb 2007 22:04:42 -0800, "Greegor" wrote:

Kane wrote
See what parents get that come here, Michael?

This is a little ****ant that claims to be a parent's rights
advocate.

Can you believe it?

Kane is a former CPS caseworker from Oregon

You have been claiming this for a long time. I've asked you for proof.
So far, nothing.

We can presume then you are lying.

and a BLOG Lobbyist for
CPS.

Provide the link to my BLOG please.

Maybe you should check out his web pages advertising kids.

Maybe you should, and discover that the actual originator of those
pages, Don Fisher, (who may have been no more than a private
contractor maintaining a website) took them down many years ago and
currently they appear only in a private archiving service.

What's the link, Greg?

Just going to continue to lie are you?

0;]

On Tuesday 13 February 2007 06:13 pm, Greegor ranted on thusly:

Where are you buying your child from Michael?
Did you see Donald L. Fisher's advertising

Oh, I see, you're a troll. I should've guessed....

Professor Quirrell: "TROLL!!!! IN THE DUNGEON!!!! I thought you should
know..."

*PLONK*

--
Michael Fierro (aka Biffster)
http://aperfectworld.biffster.org Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1
--
fortune: You have a strong desire for a home and your family interests come
first.

On Feb 13, 5:13 pm, "Greegor" wrote:
Where are you buying your child from Michael?
Did you see Donald L. Fisher's advertising
about good used mixed race babies?
Or are you going for an import?

What's the price tag?

I just hung up the phone after a conversation I had with Don.

Are you willing to put that rhetorical question into an assertive
statement, Greg?

That Don Fisher advertised "good used mixed race babies," and by
implication from asking about a price tag for foreign children, that
Fisher was selling children?

Or would you like to make clear that's not what you meant?

What did you mean, exactly?

Mmm...given his mood, and him telling me he was contacted by a mother
who has adopted her forth mixed race child, and the others over a
period of about 10 years, and given the questions he had to answer
from her, I think he's very interested in having her read (she read
you here, apparently) a follow-up statement from you on your opinion
of him 'advertising' what generally speaking are HER children by
implication.

Where and when, "Did you see Donald L. Fisher('s) advertising
about good used mixed race babies?"

I think you should be very very precise, because Don might be looking
further into that claim.

And it won't matter a bit whether or not he's ever posted with a nym.

Or are you not getting my drift here?

Or do you think the mother in this case deserves to be implicated in a
"baby selling" business?

Don't take too long this time, and my best possible advice is don't
run, not even for a day.

Let alone the two years you did last time.

And don't ask me any questions...just answer mine.

This is no time to go all clever and evasive. Trust me.

Kane