If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In regards to your question...
"that single-parent families are OK for adopted or foster kids, but not for biological children. Is that what you meant to imply?" The answer is no. I never said anything was not OK. I simply asked if you looked at this by taking yourself out of the picture and thinking what is best for your child. It is easy to split hairs on this issue and I am sorry if I have not offended you but the way I look at it is there are thousands of children out there in unloving environments who could use a loving mother, I used to be one of them. I was adopted and thank God everyday for the life and second chance I was given being supported by a loving mother "who wanted me" instead of one who did not. I think it is better then having them in home that does not want them or in a orphanage. To say which one is ok and not ok is unanswerable...I think the better question is which one is better for the involved children. Maybe I am biased because I was adopted and I realize I have no idea what it is like to be in the shoes of the lady questioning this...but I do know what it is like to be a child that is not wanted and then finally adopted and given a second chance in a loving environment. Again I deeply apologize if my previous comments were offending to anyone... Jason Visit today to WIN $250 in FREE Children's Software! http://www.funpreschooleractivities.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com, A Mighty Fun
Time says... In regards to your question... "that single-parent families are OK for adopted or foster kids, but not for biological children. Is that what you meant to imply?" The answer is no. I never said anything was not OK. I simply asked if you looked at this by taking yourself out of the picture and thinking what is best for your child. ::snip:: To say which one is ok and not ok is unanswerable...I think the better question is which one is better for the involved children. Maybe I am biased because I was adopted and I realize I have no idea what it is like to be in the shoes of the lady questioning this...but I do know what it is like to be a child that is not wanted and then finally adopted and given a second chance in a loving environment. Which is wonderful. But presumably, if you really think this is a sub-par situation for children, you would not be encouraging single people to adopt - right? If it is really true that married couples make better situations for children, you'd prefer that married couples adopt the children who need homes. But no - somehow this has come up (and so often comes up, it's certainly not just you) in the context of a prospective single parent by choice. As a single parent by choice myself (by my son being born to me, and I strongly considered adopting a second), I'm very familliar with this kind of opinion. As if, as long as I'm bound and determined to make a second-class family, I could at least help society out in the meantime by creating it from those second-class kids over there. While married heterosexual couples are presumed to want to be have biological children; people mention adoption to them only if they have fertility problems. Lifetime-committed gay couples face the same kind of expectation, BTW, and there is a situation where there will be two parents. Banty |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"I could at least help society out in the meantime by creating it from
those second-class kids over there." These are strong words and it concerns me that anyone would call any child second class. No where in any remarks of mine did anything come close to that and in fact as I said above, I was adopted so in essence that would of put me in that catagory. Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough yet again. Let me explain using your words - Adoption is giving a First Class Child a Second Chance at a Happy Life! As for this comment... "While married heterosexual couples are presumed to want to be have biological children; people mention adoption to them only if they have fertility problems." Does that surprise you - like it or not biological children come from the elements of a man and women therefore it is much more presumable to expect a biological child to come from a married heterosexual couple then from life committed gay couples. My question to you however is why do you state them to be second class kids? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com, A Mighty Fun
Time says... "I could at least help society out in the meantime by creating it from those second-class kids over there." These are strong words and it concerns me that anyone would call any child second class. No where in any remarks of mine did anything come close to that and in fact as I said above, I was adopted so in essence that would of put me in that catagory. I'm not saying adopted children are second class. I'm pointing out that saying a family situation is less than optimal, THEN recommending adoption to those in such a family situation (e.g. single parent), is in effect saying adopted children are second class, who would appropriately be raised by those in less than optimal family situations. As in, adopted children deserve LESS. Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough yet again. Let me explain using your words - Adoption is giving a First Class Child a Second Chance at a Happy Life! As for this comment... "While married heterosexual couples are presumed to want to be have biological children; people mention adoption to them only if they have fertility problems." Does that surprise you - like it or not biological children come from the elements of a man and women therefore it is much more presumable to expect a biological child to come from a married heterosexual couple then from life committed gay couples. It does surprise me. It puts adoption in a sort of Plan B backup plan. Again, the inferrence is that adopting children is a *second* choice. I don't know how that can be believed in without believing adopted kids are the lesser option, the better being biological chidlren. Married, fertile couples can and do adopt, and I think the case for adoption is much stronger when the appeal is made to all who want to parent, and not only those who are either in some difficulty or a non-standard situation. I'm puzzled why you, as a very pro-adoption adopted person, would acquiesce to this idea that the greatest group of prospective parents, the very ones *you* say are better situated to parent, would not adopt unless they're having fertility problems. My question to you however is why do you state them to be second class kids? I don't state is a fact. I'm pointing out that it's implied in the attitudes toward adoption - that it's the backup plan for married couples, that it's for those 'other' people, who are less sanctioned by society to be parents, who want to form families - single parents, gay parents. In my opinion, you've internalized some (rather prevelant) attitudes which put adopted kids in second place, along with the (rather prevelant, but becoming less so) attitudes toward single parent families as being inadequate. Think about it. Banty |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dumb question, but if you are strong and mature enough to deal with
raising a child on your own, how come you aren't strong and mature enough to be up front about who you are to your nearest and dearest (i.e.out of the closet?). Mary G. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Going Crazy! | Nikki | Pregnancy | 29 | September 26th 04 05:43 AM |
Dr. Horkel's vagina stretcher (the EPI-NO) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 2 | April 28th 04 12:36 AM |
Gastaldo finally admits he's crazy! (but only if...) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 6 | February 15th 04 04:36 AM |