Regulated Reproduction and Adoption

[True_Avery]

I've been thinking on this a bit lately, and wanted to know your thoughts on this:

 

Regulated Reproduction and Adoption

 

Currently, throughout most of the world it is legal to jump in bed with a person of the opposite sex and have a baby pop out 9 months later with little question from the fuzz or doctors.

 

The topic of this thread is:

Should this be allowed?

 

Adoption:

Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other than the birth (or "biological") mother or father. An adoption order has the effect of severing the parental responsibilities and rights of the birth parents and transferring those responsibilities and rights onto the adoptive parent(s). After the finalization of an adoption, there is no legal difference between adopted children and those born to the parents. There are several kinds of adoption, which can be defined both by effect (whether the adoption is open or closed) and by location and the origin of the child (domestic or international adoption).

 

Cost:

http://adopting.adoption.com/child/adoption-costs.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption#Cost_of_adoption

United States: Anywhere from 0 to $10,390 tax credit to $40,000+ per child.

(International adoptions tend to be more expensive and often incur additional costs, as the adoptive parents may be required to travel to the source country. Translation fees may also apply to legal documents.)

 

Regulations:

http://adopting.adoption.com/child/review-of-qualification-requirements-for-prospective-adoptive-parents.html

Methods of becoming an adoptive parent also vary from one country to another, and sometimes within a country, depending on region. Many jurisdictions have varying eligibility criteria, and may specify such things as minimum and maximum age limits, or whether a single person or only a couple can apply.

 

On applying to adopt, the potential adoptive parent(s) will generally be assessed for suitability. This can take the form of a home study, interviews, and financial, medical and criminal record checks. In some jurisdictions, such studies must be carried out by an independent or state authority, while in others, they can be carried out by the adoption agency itself. A pre-adoption course may also be required.

 

For many infant adoptions in the United States, however, agency criteria for applicants are more restrictive. Often agencies will only consider couples married at least 1 to 3 years, between the ages of 25 and 40, and with stable employment income. Some agencies accept applicants who are older than 40. Some agencies require that the couple have no other children and be unable to bear children. Some agencies require that one parent not work outside the home for at least 6 months after the adoption. Agencies placing infants will discuss their specific eligibility regulations and placement options.

 

Adoption has never been easy for those in the military. Traditionally, only the most persistent and resourceful families have been able to adopt. Because many military families move often, most agencies have been reluctant to begin the adoption process with anyone in the service. Likewise, knowledge of social workers' attitudes and agency policy has kept military families from applying to adopt.

 

Same-Sex Parent Adoptions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_by_same-sex_couples

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/adoption_coparenting121802.pdf

http://www.familiesjoinedbylove.com/

http://www.pridefamilies.com/

 

The American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other relevant professional organizations believe LGBT parents to be as qualified as heterosexuals.

 

A report from UCLA Law School's Williams Institute and the Urban Institute found that forbidding qualified gays, lesbians and bisexuals from adopting or fostering children could cost the United States between $87 million and $130 million per year (Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to 27 million).

 

Research over the past 30 years has consistently demonstrated that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. The research also indicates that optimal development for children is not based on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults.

 

Regulations for heterosexual couples apply to same-sex couples.

 

Children through Sex:

There is limited to no real regulation on the ability for people to simply jump in bed with a person of the opposite gender and have a child by accident or on purpose.

 

Should that be allowed?

 

Children are born into broken homes every day. Born into homes with abusive parents. Born into homes with neglectful parents. Parents who do everything from beat and/or rape their children, to parents who offer their kids drugs and alcohol. From parents that indoctrinate their children, to parents that don't take time to instill any morals into them.

 

Why are there regulations on adopted kids, but few on natural birth families? Shouldn't there be just as much care put into making sure the parents are suited to care for children? And, if so, how much?

 

Do you abort fetuses or early term clumps of cells when a parent(s) is deemed "unable" to care for children?

 

Do you wait for the child to be born, and then remove the child to be placed for adoption?

 

Do you legally require protection during sex under penalty of law unless you are deemed capable of caring for a child?

 

Do you ban heterosexual sex of people that are not deemed able to care for children?

 

For one thing, the birth rate would go down considerably. Now, is that really a bad thing? We hit 6 billion humans not long ago, and the number keeps going up. By 2050, it is estimated we will have reached the breaking point of 10 to 12 billion humans on Earth. I'm sorry for all you hopefuls out there, but by 12 billion it is estimated that the human race will have outgrown the planet Earth through sheer population. The earth will no longer be able to sustain us with natural resources. We are already beginning to have problems with resources like oil, and we can only cut so much natural forest down for housing before the planet, and the human race, begins to suffer considerably.

 

Cutting out the dead ends of society, and maybe even the gene pool could vastly improve the human race from a natural perspective. On the other hand, such regulations would remove a large amount of freedoms from the human population, and would provoke an uprising.

[igyman]

Hmmm, a good question with a very complicated answer. On one hand you have a good point, if there are so many regulations regarding adoption there should be more regarding biological parents, but on the other hand I think the better solution might be in "cutting a little slack" on the adoptive parents. Why? Well, simply turn the coin around - if we can initially trust the bio-parents to be good and caring and not abusive and neglectful, we can do the same for the adoptive ones, to some extent. I still think some background check is needed when it comes to adoption, but the rules probably shouldn't be as strict as they are now.

This is, I admit, only an idea that I haven't thought through in detail, but I think it makes sense.

[Corinthian]

We don't have the right to declare who can have sex with who or how many children they can have. Now, we can, and should, educate the population of the dangers, but we don't have the right to place restrictions. The Government has no place in the Bedroom.

[JediAthos]

I understand why there are strict regulations on adoptions. A lot of kids in that are up for adoption come from homes where they weren't wanted, or where there was drug use etc... There is a feeling that there is a need to make sure those children aren't being placed back into a situation similar to the one they came out of.

 

As far as regulating the ability of people to have children....it really is a tough line to walk because you are seriously bordering on interfering with people's private lives and while I understand your point, that it is something that would be extremely difficult to do. How do you control something like sex? Do you start mandatorily fixing men and women? Do you use other methods of forcible birth control? I don't really see a viable option off the top of my head to be honest.

[Tommycat]

There should be an understanding of why a child may be in need of adoption. Parental rights may be severed by the state for gross neglect. Essentially the adoption rules are preemptive measures to ensure that the child doesn't get placed in that situation again.

Though some of the adoption rules seem a bit excessive, there may be logical reasons behind those rules.

[EnderWiggin]

The regulation of reproduction makes me think of the Ender's Game Series (a ton of books by Orson Scott Card; where I took my name from) in that they also are only allowed to have 2 children. It presents many issues there, for example, Poland doesn't really abide by this rule, causing their version of the UN to count those families with more than 2 people as inapplicable, and pass sanctions so they can't send their kids to school and might be fired from their jobs.

 

The thing is, we'll never be able to do this well... so what happens to the "Thirds" as they're called in the Ender Series?

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

There are certain situations where a pregnant substance abuser is taken into custody for both her safety and the safety of the unborn child (usually very late in pregnancy) in addition to being taken into custody for whatever illegal activity she's been involved in. As soon as the baby is born, he or she is put into foster care. My sister-in-law and her hubby became foster parents to two infants (same mother) in this way.

 

I wouldn't mind if in certain situations sterilization was offered not as a requirement, but as a very attractive option, for someone who is, say, a chronic child abuser, but I don't see that happening.

[TK-8252]

LOL! How the hell do you enforce that exactly?

 

Throw pregnant women in jail? Take their children away from them to live in foster homes? Mandatory sterilization? Forced abortions?

 

The day that the government says who can and cannot reproduce is the day we become even worse than the Chinese Communist regime. Even they don't say who can or cannot reproduce... they just say how much you can reproduce. I think that this would be the most highly authoritarian form of government in history to tell people that they cannot exercise their natural biological function to produce offspring.

 

Government shouldn't have ANY jurisdiction in the bedroom. Period.

[Jae Onasi]

LOL! How the hell do you enforce that exactly?

That's why I said make it an option, not a requirement.

Throw pregnant women in jail? Take their children away from them to live in foster homes? Mandatory sterilization? Forced abortions?

The mother of the kids my sister-in-law cares for was actually put in jail for drug possession while she was pregnant, and was kept there while pregnant with the second child. That child was born at a normal weight and didn't go through drug withdrawal at birth because mom was forced to stay clean while incarcerated. Her first child wasn't so lucky and has behavioral problems as a result of drug exposure in utero. My sister-in-law is in the process of adopting the younger child because mom gave him up for adoption.

[Ray Jones]

Why are there regulations on adopted kids, but few on natural birth families?

I don't know.

 

Shouldn't there be just as much care put into making sure the parents are suited to care for children?

YES! For crying out loud!

 

And, if so, how much?

So much to make sure to have "qualified" people raising children. Not so much that families cannot decide whether the kids learn Zen Shiatsu or how to play the piano.

 

Do you abort fetuses or early term clumps of cells when a parent(s) is deemed "unable" to care for children?

Rather not. Although, when we'd have smoking/drinking moms or the unborn is put into dangers in any way, hm hm hm. Cannot say for sure. However, education is I think at least a very considerable option.

 

Do you wait for the child to be born, and then remove the child to be placed for adoption?

When the parents do not qualify, yes. Better than having the child in an environment that will do not good to them and put them into children's homes when their like 6 anyway.

 

Do you legally require protection during sex under penalty of law unless you are deemed capable of caring for a child?

Not necessarily. But when you produce a child you can not care for, you should at least pay for it.

 

Do you ban heterosexual sex of people that are not deemed able to care for children?

Nope.

 

Cutting out the dead ends of society, and maybe even the gene pool could vastly improve the human race from a natural perspective.[/Quote]The human gene code has not changed over the last 35.000 years.

 

On the other hand, such regulations would remove a large amount of freedoms from the human population, and would provoke an uprising.

On another other hand, what would human freedom be like on the other hand, and how much freedom is really taken away when it's basically just about making people think and show responsibility towards our descendants?