|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 17:34:26 GMT -5
And I am fully in favor of finding a way to make adoption more affordable. That is preferable to me than just assuming there is no way to make adoption more affordable and encouraging people to make more babies instead.
You're right. I take it back. I completely underestimated the cost of an adoption and I did not know it was impossible to pay in installments.
|
|
|
|
Post by trike on Sept 5, 2011 17:38:08 GMT -5
Not forgetting that single people in most states run into road blocks trying to adopt (if not outright bigotry) so that's another consideration when considering whether to adopt or go with a sperm donor when you are single and/or living a non-hetero lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 5, 2011 17:41:49 GMT -5
And I am fully in favor of finding a way to make adoption more affordable. That is preferable to me than just assuming there is no way to make adoption more affordable and encouraging people to make more babies instead. How about we look at the other issue - having a baby and adopting a child are not the same thing. They have a completely different set of challenges, of responsibilities, and of rewards than having your own biological child. The real problem in this country isn't un-adopted babies (to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong) because people want babies. It is un-adopted older kids. If you want to have a baby, adoption is not necessarily going to work. Also, there are still a lot of places where gay couples are at the very least disfavored for adoption if not outright banned from adopting. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 5, 2011 17:46:46 GMT -5
And I am fully in favor of finding a way to make adoption more affordable. That is preferable to me than just assuming there is no way to make adoption more affordable and encouraging people to make more babies instead. I love it when people assume I said things I didn't. It's my favorite. I love how you can tell my position on everything being debated from a single sentence. It's quite a remarkable talent. And no, this doesn't mean I agree with you. It means that I did not say what I believe one way or the other and you're an idiot for assuming my position just because I criticize one part of your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 17:54:28 GMT -5
Again, it's not bigotry when you take people's lifestyle choices into consideration. Obviously, for a child who is already here, one parent is better than no parents, but I don't have a problem with allowing marital status to play a role in deciding between two prospective adoptees (provided it isn't the defining factor: obviously a single dedicated woman is better than two drug-addicted married people; also with the caveat that gay couples are allowed to marry and treated no differently from opposite-sex married couples).
You're 100% right, and I understand why people would want to go the artificial insemination route. I wouldn't try to use the force of the law to stop them; I'm just saying that I don't see it as a preferable means of childbearing. The best interests of the child must outweigh the adults' desire to be parents. And in my opinion, the best interest of a child is to be reared by his or her biological parents, provided that they are both responsible and capable. It is only when these parents are not responsible and capable that this responsibility should devolve onto someone else. There is no gnawing desire to find out who one's biological parents are if you are raised by them and there are no genetic concerns in having to wonder if you've inherited something from a parent you may never meet.
You were right to criticize that argument and I accept that criticism. I'm just saying there is a better way to overcome it than making artificial insemination automatically preferable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 5, 2011 17:58:37 GMT -5
You were right to criticize that argument and I accept that criticism. I'm just saying there is a better way to overcome it than making artificial insemination automatically preferable. See, that second sentence, that is why Amaranth says you make strawmen. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 18:01:26 GMT -5
I did not say that you were arguing that artificial insemination was more or less preferable. I conceded to your argument that the cost of adopting a baby far exceeds the cost of raising one, which required me to also concede that either artificial insemination was preferable to adoption or that there are other means to make adoption more preferable. I chose the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Sept 5, 2011 18:04:42 GMT -5
I personally would rank them as: both biological, both adoptive (in a close second), then 1 biological/1 adopted. How can you really rank these situations? Like you said, the important thing is that both parents are good parents. Beyond that, what difference does it make? Are you suggesting that an adoptive parent can't love their children as much as their biological children? I've seen firsthand proof that this isn't the case. I know a woman (D) whose mother died when she was an infant. Her father remarried a woman we'll call N, and they had another daughter, S. D refers to (and thinks of) her father as Dad, her biological mother as, "By Biological Mother," and her stepmother as "Mom". Incidentally, her father was a bad parent while her stepmother is a great parent, and, as such, both D and S have a better relationship with N than with their father. What's more, N's relationship with D and S is basically the same. Oh, and D has never been married and has an adult daughter, L, whose father isn't in the picture. She did a great job raising L on her own. The biological relationships between these people doesn't matter-- what matters is that N and D were both good parents. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 18:09:00 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that the most preferable means of raising children is with the two biological parents, so long as they are both responsible and capable. It is only when they are not should this responsibility devolve onto somebody else, who will adopt them and can love them just like their own. If a parent tragically dies, obviously s/he is no longer capable of being a parent.
So a single woman who chooses to undergo artificial insemination by some donor she doesn't know will bring a child into this world who will have no relationship with his father. This just seems cruel to me. The single woman is putting her personal desire to be a mother over being able to provide her child with a relationship with his biological father.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 18:20:17 GMT -5
While I agree that it would be preferable if more people adopted children (particularly older ones in the foster system), I don't think it's fair to pass judgment on those who choose insemination/egg donation instead. We're talking about a fundamental biological urge here, one which is very difficult to override.
In the case of a gay couple, simply knowing that even one of you is related to the child can be a powerful thing. Likewise, these couples can have more than one kid, and each provide DNA for different children, using the same donor so the kids are all related to one another. Some might even have a relative of the non-genetic parent provide either the egg or sperm, so they'll both at least be related to the kid.
Why is having both biological parents preferable? Shouldn't it depend on the caliber of the parenting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Runa on Sept 5, 2011 18:23:39 GMT -5
Or how about... Who gives a fuck about how the child comes into the world and who raises it so long as it is loved, provided for, educated and treated like the human being that it is? Oh, and I have no intention of ever breeding. Given that my father was alcoholic, my mother a promiscuous drug-addled cow, and I'm autistic and happily childfree, I think it would be a bad idea.  But I don't believe in denying anybody the right to a) adopt or b) have a biological child. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 18:25:53 GMT -5
I'm saying that being raised by both biological parents is only the most preferable when they are both responsible and capable. Obviously if the two biological parents are both drug addicts, then a responsible and capable adoptive couple is preferable. My issue is with purposely bringing children into this world who, from the start, will have no relationship with one of their biological parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 18:28:02 GMT -5
Unless they're proven to be a danger to the child, of course. Not, like, involuntary sterilization, but removal of custody and preventing them from adopting and fostering kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 18:30:04 GMT -5
I'm saying that being raised by both biological parents is only the most preferable when they are both responsible and capable. Obviously if the two biological parents are both drug addicts, then a responsible and capable adoptive couple is preferable. My issue is with purposely bringing children into this world who, from the start, will have no relationship with one of their biological parents. Can you provide any statistics demonstrating that having both biological parents in a child's life (versus those raised by two parents, one or both of whom weren't biologically related) has a meaningful effect on their well-being? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 18:38:09 GMT -5
I am not concerned with developmental problems a child may incur from being adoptive (I do not know if such problems are more likely, or how much more likely, to occur). To me it is an ethical issue: that one should have the right to know who one's biological parents are and, provided that the parents don't pose a danger, a child should, from birth, be able to have a relationship with both of them.
It is for this reason that, even in the midst of the messiest divorces, the courts are highly averse to cutting off all ties between a parent and child. Even if a parent's visits have to be court supervised, they will do what it takes to make sure a child can see both of his or her parents.
|
|
