Adoption of mentally impaired babies

[Cato]

I presented abortion as a moral alternative and left it at that quite clearly stating that it wasn't my choice. i think that carrying the child to term and raising it is also perfectly moral. What I have emphatically opined about is the immorality of giving the baby up for adoption when it's perfectly within the parents ability to care for it. This is exactly what you were seeking, was it not?

Let me change the scenario a bit to steer clear of the 'A'-word.

Let's imagine our happy couple had a perfectly healthy girl who attained the age of seven before suffering an accidental traumatic brain injury rendering her in all respects the same as a child born with a mental disability. Keeping with the parents stated means to care for such a child, would it be moral to then give up the child because it becomes too emotionally distressing for the parent? I say no.

[Seraphina]

Wow, that's a little harsh. As I said above, I would actually think it would be big of them to go through the sacrifice of pregnancy and childbirth (without a baby to look forward to) for the sake of giving their son/daughter the best life possible. 

To each their own though.

Harsh? I think you should reserve that for the assholes intentionally bringing an unwanted child into the world. The best possible life would be for the parents with means to raise the child. It's the abject selfishness here that I find disgusting. Not much difference in my opinion from the Spartans rejecting undesirable children. The Spartans may have been less civilized about it, but it's the same thing. Far different from those mothers agonizing over giving up a child for the lack of means to raise it. These people disgust me.

Looking down on parents who bring an unwanted child into the world and who decide to give up that child for adoption and wanting to teach them a lesson doesn't really help the child in question. Anyone can bump uglies and make a baby but not everyone is qualified, so to speak, to be a parent.

How is a parent of a disabled baby deciding that they're mentally and emotionally unequipped to handle raising the child different from a 16 year old boy or girl deciding that they're mentally and emotionally unequipped to handle raising a child? And how does parsing any real or imagined differences between the two help ensure the baby is raised in the best possible environment?

At the end of the day, it's the child's interests that should be foremost. If a parent believes the child will have a better life with another family through adoption (and, absent death of both parents, isn't that the reason for all adoptions??), then who am I to judge?

[Mermaid]

My honest answer: I don't get an opinion, it isn't my life, my decision or my business.

[chimp3]

Generally , a child with Downs remains a dependent for life. I have taken care of a person with Downs Syhdrome in a nursing home.  He was cared for by his parents until the parents became senile and went to nursing homes themselves . Only then did the parents institutionalize their 50 year old child. What commitment! 50 years of caring for one child.

[Cato]

Tres,

I already hoped the best for the babe, so I'm not quite sure what the obfuscation is about there. We were talking about the morality of the decision made by the parents. 

You invoking a 16 year old couple is a red hearing. I think you already appreciate why since you labeled the huge difference, real or imagined, as unimportant compared to care of the child in a preemptive move to close debate on the topic. A bullshit move in my opinion.

[Catholic_Lady]

I presented abortion as a moral alternative and left it at that quite clearly stating that it wasn't my choice. i think that carrying the child to term and raising it is also perfectly moral. What I have emphatically opined about is the immorality of giving the baby up for adoption when it's perfectly within the parents ability to care for it. This is exactly what you were seeking, was it not?

Let me change the scenario a bit to steer clear of the 'A'-word.

Let's imagine our happy couple had a perfectly healthy girl who attained the age of seven before suffering an accidental traumatic brain injury rendering her in all respects the same as a child born with a mental disability. Keeping with the parents stated means to care for such a child, would it be moral to then give up the child because it becomes too emotionally distressing for the parent? I say no.

Well I asked for opinions on adoption, not abortion. But I see how it could easily be brought up in this convo. I guess I naively just didn't think anyone would "go there." Let's just assume this is not an option and take it from there.

Anyway, as for the 2nd paragraph, I would argue that it's all about what's best for the child. It would be incredibly cruel to seperate the child from his/her parents and comfort zone. When they are new borns, they dont know any better. But soon after, the attachment to the parents and environment becomes established. It would kind of defeat the whole purpose of the adoption scenario I presented bc it would be trammatic for the kid.

As for the parents, I'd assume that at that point they would be so attached to their kid, that giving them away would be even more emotionally traumatic than having to see their kid struggle with a serious disability.

[Seraphina]

Tres,

I already hoped the best for the babe, so I'm not quite sure what the obfuscation is about there. We were talking about the morality of the decision made by the parents. 
 
You invoking a 16 year old couple is a red hearing. I think you already appreciate why since you labeled the huge difference, real or imagined, as unimportant compared to care of the child in a preemptive move to close debate on the topic. A bullshit move in my opinion.

Meh. Parents should have all choices and options open including abortion and adoption. You obviously have your own opinions and I have mine, "bullshit" or not.

[Cato]

Meh. Parents should have all choices and options open including abortion and adoption. You obviously have your own opinions and I have mine, "bullshit" or not.

Keep up Tres. Your opinion isn't bullshit, the fact that you tried to preemptively shield your opinion from criticism was.

[Amarok]

I agree with lady for convo sake let's leave out abortion

As to Cato as much as I don't personally like it I can't really say in your scenario the parents are in the wrong I don't like it but I can't call it wrong so I got to side with Tres

[Cato]

CL,

We agree that care for the child is paramount. I agree with your attachment considerations in older children. You didn't state it, but seem to agree that adoption of the older child would be immoral. 

I think where we differ is that I put much more weight on the obligations of the parents. To give up the child for adoption because they don't think they can cope is unconscionable. In addition, this sort of acceptance can be used to justify the following:

- family wants a daughter, baby born with penis, can't cope; therefore adoption.
- family of musicians learn that their infant is deaf, can't cope; therefore adoption.


In fact, it doesn't really matter then what the underlying reason is, as long as the parents claim an inability to cope then there is nothing immoral about giving kids up. 

In my opinion, as long as parents are capable of caring and providing for their children, they have a moral obligation to do so. As I said earlier, if able parents adopt out their children simply because they can't cope, they should be made to materially provide for that child.