Why should they be made to materially provide?  The adoptive parent has voluntarily assumed full rights and responsibilities, the biological has given them up. Did you really just suggest that an enforcement agency should be used to compel your idea of a moral obligation?

Where's KUSA these days??
He'll tell you they're just little meat bags!

(January 10, 2017 at 11:08 pm)Cato Wrote: 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.

I like/understand what you said about parents having a moral responsibility. And I agree.

However, I don't think adoption would ever be something that ppl take so lightly as to just *look* for excuses to give their babies away. Especially for such a dumb reason as wanting a boy and getting a girl. Its very emotionally difficult to give away your little one, and i imagine not something ppl would just do unless under extreme circumstances. Not to mention pregnancy most certainly is not a walk in the park, and most ppl who would go through the selfless act of a 9 months pregnancy for the sake of giving their child life, would more than likely care enough not to give them away unless they truly thought it was for the child's best interest.

Ultimately I think it's more ideal if the biological parents are able to find the strength to take on such a heavy situation. But I don't think it is immoral if they truly feel that another family would be better equipped and so made arrangements for that. I would actually applaud them for their sacrifice to ensure that their baby got the best life possible.

(January 10, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Godschild Wrote:

---

To judge them is not for us to do. What I do believe is that God blessed them with a child and expects them to raise this child in a loving home. As one who cares for a mentally challenged lady I know the joy that comes with it and that joy far out weighs the frustrations. I can't believe her parents gave her up and missed out on the joy she is. Yes there are challenges but what in life is not a challenge, maybe laziness. I believe there are those who would be embarrassed by such a child especially if they run in certain circles, if they only new the beauty of these children and the ugliness of those around them that would judge them. This child is a God given gift and should be accepted that way. I pray this child will end up in a good home, our girl spent seven years in hell before she came to us, I thank God for her every day.

GC

---

This was beautiful, GC. 

Thank you, I hope the child will remain in it's families care and love, love is what they need most of all. Tell the parents God wouldn't give them a child they are not capable of caring for and loving deeply, let them know this is not a test but a precious gift.

GC

(January 11, 2017 at 12:50 am)ignoramus Wrote: Where's KUSA these days??
He'll tell you they're just little meat bags!

They're that, and much...much more.  Mostly dicks.  Terrible assholes.  But also precious, lol.

(January 11, 2017 at 1:09 am)Godschild Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This was beautiful, GC. 

Thank you, I hope the child will remain in it's families care and love, love is what they need most of all. Tell the parents God wouldn't give them a child they are not capable of caring for and loving deeply, let them know this is not a test but a precious gift.

GC

Thank you, love. Beautiful words. This was a hypothetical scenario, not attributed to anyone in particular. <3

(January 11, 2017 at 12:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why should they be made to materially provide?  The adoptive parent has voluntarily assumed full rights and responsibilities, the biological has given them up.  Did you really just suggest that an enforcement agency should be used to compel your idea of a moral obligation?

You're right here, got me. I don't condone government enforcement of morality, particularly where there's no victim. Despite my strong feelings about the situation I can hardly consider the child a victim.

---

(January 11, 2017 at 12:59 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I like/understand what you said about parents having a moral responsibility. And I agree.

However, I don't think adoption would ever be something that ppl take so lightly as to just *look* for excuses to give their babies away. Especially for such a dumb reason as wanting a boy and getting a girl. Its very emotionally difficult to give away your little one, and i imagine not something ppl would just do unless under extreme circumstances. Not to mention pregnancy most certainly is not a walk in the park, and most ppl who would go through the selfless act of a 9 months pregnancy for the sake of giving their child life, would more than likely care enough not to give them away unless they truly thought it was for the child's best interest.

Ultimately I think it's more ideal if the biological parents are able to find the strength to take on such a heavy situation. But I don't think it is immoral if they truly feel that another family would be better equipped and so made arrangements for that. I would actually applaud them for their sacrifice to ensure that their baby got the best life possible.

I think you misunderstood my examples. I'm not saying people are looking for excuses to give their babies away, only that there may be other reasons that would put them in the same emotional state as the parents in your example. The only difference is that you may not personally consider their reasons sufficient for giving the baby up for adoption. This presents problems for your position in that the act is moral or not depending on some undefined criteria for what triggers the parents emotional inability to raise a child and not simply the fact that they are emotionally unprepared to do so. Who then becomes the arbiter?

If you think my examples are absurd, you should probably look into the adult male/female population splits in China.

(January 10, 2017 at 7:52 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 11:26 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How do you guys feel about a couple who, upon learning their unborn baby had a mental impairment such as Down Syndrome (or other), decide to look for a good family to adopt their baby? Apparently there are people out there who feel a calling and have a passion for special needs children, and who specifically look for these types of babies to adopt. 

Let me also say that this pregnant couple has the financial means and plenty of support to take care of a mentally impaired child. But the reason they want to put their child up for adoption is because they feel like emotionally/mentally they just wouldn't be able to handle the grief and heartache that would come from seeing their child struggle through life.   

So, do you think it's wrong for the pregnant couple to choose to put their baby up for adoption in this case? Would you judge them? How do you feel about this type of decision?

(bolded to emphasize this would be about finding a loving adopted family prior to the birth, NOT leaving the child in an orphanage)

I say dash the baby on some rocks, Get god that angel quicker

What the eff??

(January 10, 2017 at 8:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 7:58 pm)Cato Wrote: 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.

I guess I don't see how it is selfish to go through a pregnancy (which is not easy) when you won't get anything out of it, so that you can give your mentally impaired child life and loving parents who are well equipped to take good care of him/her. I think having the child killed would be much more selfish.

Well, it's really not a selfless act, if the parents simply continue with the pregnancy out of a misguided notion that it keeps their asses from frying in Hell.

Rather than simply wanting to avoid heartache and pain, I would assume this hypothetical couple is just set on having "a good one". And perhaps have a religious objection to terminating a pregnancy that would result in what would clearly be an unwanted child (by the birth couple). 

IMO, placing their child up for adoption would be much preferable to the prospect of one or both parents constantly simmering with resentment/anger/rage, and/or just generally being pissed off for having to raise a child who has no hope of ever being as cool, capable, and pretty as them. 

I'd be very concerned for the impaired child's well-being, as well as any "good" kids they had, for having having to suffer such shallow, shitty parents.

So, I guess I would view this as a good or decent decision, made by a hollow person/couple.

(January 11, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 8:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I guess I don't see how it is selfish to go through a pregnancy (which is not easy) when you won't get anything out of it, so that you can give your mentally impaired child life and loving parents who are well equipped to take good care of him/her. I think having the child killed would be much more selfish.

Well, it's really not a selfless act, if the parents simply continue with the pregnancy out of a misguided notion that it keeps their asses from frying in Hell.

Rather than simply wanting to avoid heartache and pain, I would assume this hypothetical couple is just set on having "a good one". And perhaps have a religious objection to terminating a pregnancy that would result in what would clearly be an unwanted child (by the birth couple). 

It's silly to assume that someone who chooses to find adoptive parents for their unborn child is simply doing it because they want to avoid going to Hell by getting an abortion. Especially since they could easily just feel remorse for what they've done (which they probably would anyway) and be forgiven. 

Hell or not, many people just don't like the thought of killing their unborn baby. By the time any sort of severe mental impairment is diagnosed, the baby is usually well into the second trimester and can usually feel pain at that point. Abortion is not a painless death, like putting your dog to sleep. And to say that any parent would choose adoption over abortion in this case simply out of fear of hell is extremely offensive to anyone who has been in that position. 

Also, as I said. I'd rather just stick to the morality of the act presented rather than bring abortion into it. Somehow I always get baited into responding even though it's the last thing I wanna talk about right now.