NewstalkZB reports;
Judge pushes for gay and de-facto adoption
His call is all very well but surely gay or de facto adoption is a moot point. There are sadly hardly any babies available for adoption anyway. From a high of almost 4,000 adoptions in the early seventies there are now only between 100 and 200 each year (77 non-family adoptions in 2008 according to the Adoption Trust). CYF counsels young mothers to keep their babies and go on the DPB.
Who’s More Stasi: Britain or Germany?
1 hour ago
19 comments:
Well we have to maintain the absurd fiction that a man/man or woman/woman pairing is no different than a man/woman pairing despite the fact that biology dictates otherwise.
o
As long as commercial adoption and surrogacy are banned, and adoption is controlled by the State, we will always have the problem of too few babies available, too many aborted, and too many mothers on the DPB.
Commercial adoption would solve a host of problems. People need to get over the moral objection of "putting a price" on babies. Thousands of couples would be able to have their dreams of a child fulfilled. Thousands of women would be free to pursue a career other than "motherhood". And the lives of many babies would be saved.
And yes, gay couples would be able to adopt too, if that's what the biological mother was comfortable with! It's her decision, not the government's.
The state has no business in banning such adoptions.
The state has no business in banning such adoptions.
And the state has no right interfering people bash infants or hang them on clotheslines either.
Let's put defenseless infants up for sale to the highest bidder to do whatever they want with them no questions asked.
What have you been smoking anon?
That's a very good point.
The prevailing wisdom is that babies are better with their natural parents regardless of the parents' abilities and means.
The result of that is, as you point out, very few chidlren who are offered for adpotion.
Not necessarily homepaddock. DNA is a significant determinate of IQ, and it is often those of lower IQ's who end up pregnant in a situation where they choose to put the child up for adoption.
Andries homophobia is pretty bloody shocking btw.
"Andries homophobia is pretty bloody shocking btw."
Well he's one of those "loving Christians" you know....
Andries homophobia is pretty bloody shocking btw
I love the way the thought police chuck around meaningless insults when confronted by an argument they cannot counter.
In this case the difference between genders is of biological origin and that from a biological perspective they have different roles to play in bringing forth the next generation.
Word games wont alter that fact one iota - sorry 'bout that.
The legalisation of abortion has all but killed off adoption. Agreed, it is a moot point while the slaugher of innocent life goes on unchecked.
Personally, I don't see the problem.
I'd rather see a child being looked after by a caring gay/lesbian couple than a struggling solo parent on the DPB.
"In this case the difference between genders is of biological origin and that from a biological perspective they have different roles to play in bringing forth the next generation."
Let's not forget that gay people are born of heterosexual parents.
Andrei: If you can't tell the difference between voluntary adoption and bashing people then no wonder freedom is in trouble. Your remarks defy logic and display either a stupidity so deeply engrained as to be nearly fatal to reason, or a simply hatred that forces someone who is intelligent to say incredible daft things. Take your pick.
The entire point of adoption is to do what is best for the child.
There is masses of information, from the study of Psychology, on the differing impacts the adult male and the adult female have on the development of a girl or boy.
Take the adult male.
His relationship with his daughter affects:
*her body image,
*her career choices,
*who she chooses as a partner in her adult life.
His relationship with his son affects:
*his self esteem
*his ability to move smoothly from adolesence to adulthood.
See, for starters:
He'll be OK by Celia Lashlie
My Father, My Self by M.A. Goetz
Getting the love you want by Harville Hendrix
There is extremely little information on the effects of being raised by two mothers or two fathers, simply because this phenomenon has not been around long enough to study.
However, given that we do know that mothers/fathers contribute very differently to a child's development, it is reasonable to assume that there MAY be negative effects in being raised by a single gender, even if there's two of them.
It is inappropriate to experiment with a child's life.
In an adoption, the right of the child to grow up in the healthiest environment (to the best of our knowledge) MUST trump any adult rights.
Karen
A child should be raised by a person/people who love them and are prepared to take lifelong responsibility for loving and nurturing them.
When you are dispassionately choosing families for the adoption pool - as is the case in state mediated adoption - your responsibility is to the CHILD.
You must choose families that will provide the healthiest environment for the child, to the best of your current knowledge.
It is then reasonable to assume that love and responsiblity will likely flourish following the adoption.
When dealing with a child's life it seems prudent to err on the side of caution, and in an adoption situation the CHILD'S rights and welfare are paramount.
Cheers
Karen
I wonder what caused the Gay community to receive a rush of blood to the head and decide they want the right to adopt children.
In the meantime the thousands of heterosexual couples who want to adopt and can't remain invisible while the media concentrates on the "plight" of the handfull of Gay couples who want to adopt and are not allowed to.
Why the "gay community"? We don't talk about the "heterosexual community". Gay people are individuals too. In any case the latest furor was caused by the judge.
Having gone through the adoption process with CYPF I'm not surprised that adoption numbers are so low. I was made aware that the leader of the service in 2007 set a deliberate policy of reducing the numbers of adoptions within New Zealand out of some misguided idea that the children "may" be better off with their biological parents. The whole process was so skewed as to be ludicrous. The emotional toll the process takes for couples willing to adopt is enormous and something we would not wish to enter into again.
That being said, and knowing our desire to have a child, I cannot support commercial adoption or surrogacy in any form and it would only cause more problems for all involved.
Andrei has a point - how interesting this fiction is focused on in the name of "rights". I suspect that this fiction has to be exaggerated to a bright shining lie in order to cover the illogical position of the proponents.
One other point - I do not think it is acceptable for Judges in leadership positions to be making their views known. Their job is to uphold and ensure justice, not to enter into a debate on social policy which is the preserve of the politicians and the community. Clearly Dame Elias needs to be reminded of the place of judges in the system.
If I want her opinion or any of the judges under her, I'll expect the Minister of Justice to give them one.
Post a Comment