Is there not a difference (or sholdn't there be) between (the rights of) parent 
who GIVE UP their children for adoption and parents who get their children 
taken away from them??

I would expect the median voter to be quite willing to give less (no) rights to 
parents who willingly give up their children for adoption (thinking: I would 
never do that) - while reserving some rights for parents, who get their 
children taken away, to get those children back once they "better themselves" 
(thinking: It might happen to me / my children / friends etc)

Jacob W Braestrup

Citat John Driessnack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I did not see the special, but I'm an adoptive parent (trans-racial) and
> my wife is a social worker that has worked these issues. 
> 
> Dislike the system compared to what!  Having seen close hand the power
> of social workers in some states (I'm military and have moved around..so
> my wife has worked in numerous states) people should be a lot more
> worried about losing their own biological kids.  I think it explains a
> lot...but what would be interesting is a review of local and state rules
> and the actual results from those rules.  Compare Mass and Texas...an
> aggressive state with lots of money in the system (this was the location
> of my adoption) to Texas or other states that have a higher bar for the
> social worker (government) to step into the situation.   What is the
> long term impact on the children. 
> 
> Also...those impeccable adoptive parents?"   How do you tell that!  What
> is the measure?   The state can provide enough funds if they want to
> make any parent able to care for the needs of the children.  The state
> can provide the day care, professional support, schooling,  after school
> sports activities, etc.  What does the parent really provide?  Is a
> child better off in a  home with rich resources but lacking in true love
> (child is just a symbol of the family being complete) and caring (parent
> takes the time to talk about life and the child's concerns vis going to
> that all important business dinner).  
> 
> The problem for the median voter is they are NOT the perfect
> parent....hardly anyone is...so were does the median voter want the bar
> placed.   I would say not too high.  It is low because most parents can
> hit that low point at least once in their parenting career.    The
> median (parent) voter knows they really don't want big brother
> government looking over that shoulder too closely.  It is the measure of
> intentions that is tough.   True care for the child from an imperfect
> parent is much better than the appearing perfect parent with no true
> care for the child. 
> 
> PS...I also have two nieces that live with me...so my house has 6
> children in all.  The interesting question is the structure of the
> family.  Why do we have the need for adoptive families?  Why can't
> extended families handle the situation.  Do extended families get the
> same help from society as a child that is formally taken away from the
> family and put up for foster care or adoption?   Would the state be
> better off putting resources towards extended family care.  Some states
> do, some don't....  Then you get into the reason why people have
> children to begin with and what control does the state want in that...or
> what does the median voter want...gain how high do you want the bar
> placed?  
> 
> jdd
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/06/02 02:31PM >>>
> Two weeks ago there was a John Stossel special on adoption.  Does the
> median voter really want the system we have, where basketcase
> biological
> parents can take their crying offspring away from impeccable adoptive
> parents?  How about the de facto efforts to avoid trans-racial
> adoption?  Etc.?  I rarely expect the median voter to agree with me,
> but
> this seems like a case where a comfortable majority of normal
> Americans
> dislike the existing rules.
> 
> You might say that people are a lot more worried about losing their
> own
> biological kids than they are about other people's adoptive kids being
> taken away.  But I doubt that explanation is right.
> -- 
>                         Prof. Bryan Caplan                
>        Department of Economics      George Mason University
>         http://www.bcaplan.com      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>    "Who are they?  Why are they running?  Could they be coming to 
>     me?  Really coming to me?  And why?  To kill me?  *Me* whom 
>     everyone loves?"
>         Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
> 

Reply via email to