PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
PLAYROY1
children, but was convicted of child abuse (not sexual abuse) and driving under
the influence which she pleaded guilty to. However, she is never allowed to
adopt again. Imagine the uproar if a biological mother had committed the same
crimes and was told she has to tie her tubes? And yet there are some that deny
prejudice against adoptive parents.
Marley Greiner
"PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020127114203...@mb-md.aol.com...
Uh Roy.... court ordered sterilization as far as I know is not legal without
the victim's consent (so so far yet, but we've to 3 more years of Ashcroft
to endure) and being denied to adopt are two quite separate things. We all
know a deal was cut, ,and I personally don't think Paula Poundstone should
have been allowed to keep those kids, who are hardly any angels themselves.
Poundstone is a vile creepy person who should never have been allowed to
adopt to begin with. Hopefully her career will now tank and she'll have to
get a real job like the rest of us. GR?
Marley
rkbose
OTOH, the bio-mom might well be prevented from *raising* her child, though the govt
couldn't well prevent her from having one. If the Anti-CPS lot are to be believed,
a mother suspected of abusing her kids could lose her newborn straight from the
hospital.
Rupa
Jack Bernhard
"PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> blabbered in message
news:20020127114203...@mb-md.aol.com...
Are you being deliberately argumentative? You don't see the obvious
difference here? I strongly believe that adoptive parents need to be held
to a higher standard than natural parents. Personally, I can argue that the
present standards aren't high enough. One only has to look at Ms.
Poundstone and yourself as examples of the current shortcomings in the
selection process. Anyone can plop out a baby, given the correct plumbing.
It's a natural function. Adoption, OTOH, is a legal mechanism. This
mechanism is not purportedly designed to give childless couples the baby
that they somehow need to complete their life, but rather to give the child
a permanent home. This, however, is up for debate.
Regardless, adopting is not a right or a natural function. It is, instead a
privilege that should be granted to those who meet the highest standards.
In doing so, they should be held to those standards, or lose the privilege
altogether. They are, after all, raising someone else's kid.
Jack
Lainie Petersen
Hardly.
Nobody is entitled to adopt, there exists no right to adopt. However,
the courts in the U.S. have upheld the right of people to reproduce.
It isn't a matter of prejudice, it is a matter of biology.
Lainie
Marley Greiner
"Lainie Petersen" <sf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:671d8c26.02012...@posting.google.com...
Laine Laine, Roy *believes* that adoption *is* reproduction.
Marley
Palms2pines
>
>Marley
>
There ya go, Marley. Playroy's sense of entitlement conflicts with his sense of
insecurity. But being torn between these two extremes has made him a highly
entertaining nitwit.
P2P
Marley Greiner
"Palms2pines" <palms...@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20020127162305...@mb-fa.aol.com...
I'd like to see Di, Marnie, and Melinda take Roy to task.
Marley
Lainie Petersen
> Laine Laine, Roy *believes* that adoption *is* reproduction.
Blink.
How? Does he think that adoptees are like sourdough starters: give a
portion away to someone and then they give it away to a few friends,
and so on?
Lainie
GR
(PLAYROY1) writes:
>Apparently Paula is allowed to keep her adopted children and her foster
>children,
Apparently, you're fucked-as-usual, yardbitch. PP's kids are
currently in care, NOT with her. She may, or may not, get
them back after she completes treatment and undergoes
evaluation. It's totally up to social services.
> but was convicted of child abuse (not sexual abuse) and driving
>under the influence which she pleaded guilty to.
Ah. A fact from you, at last. This is correct.
> However, she is never allowed to
>adopt again. Imagine the uproar if a biological mother had committed the
>same crimes and was told she has to tie her tubes?
>And yet there are some that deny prejudice against
>adoptive parents.
Huh??
Umm... It's early in the year, but go ahead and start
work on the flowerbeds. Obviously, I haven't been
giving you enough to do.
GR
GR
Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
<snip - Yardbitch Roy's lunacy>
>Uh Roy.... court ordered sterilization as far as I know is not legal without
>the victim's consent
Who knew?!? Marley, you're just making this up!
>(so so far yet, but we've to 3 more years of Ashcroft
>to endure)
::shudder:: That freak just sets off soooo many alarms.
>and being denied to adopt are two quite separate things.
Oh suuuure. Now you're just nit-picking.
>We all
>know a deal was cut, ,and I personally don't think Paula Poundstone should
>have been allowed to keep those kids, who are hardly any angels >themselves.
Yes, a deal was cut in order to make the sexual charges go
away as quietly as possible. She doesn't have the kids now, they
are in foster homes/group homes - something like that. She
may get them back after she completes treatment, and then
again - she may not. It's a CPS call from here.
>Poundstone is a vile creepy person who should never have been allowed to
>adopt to begin with.
At the time, she seemed like an okay foster-parent which then
morphed into being an adoptive parent, possession being 9/10ths
of the law. I agree, she's creepy and has always been creepy.
> Hopefully her career will now tank and she'll have to
>get a real job like the rest of us. GR?
Yep. Whatever happens with the kids - her career as a
comedienne is definitely over. What the hell she'll find to
do for a living now, I have no idea. She has some friends
left, maybe they'll give her a job.
G(but she's toast)R
Marley Greiner
"GR" <syb...@aol.commanche> wrote in message
news:20020128154209...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> In article <kpW48.5380$S67.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley
> Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> <snip - Yardbitch Roy's lunacy>
>
> >Uh Roy.... court ordered sterilization as far as I know is not legal
without
> >the victim's consent
>
> Who knew?!? Marley, you're just making this up!
>
> >(so so far yet, but we've to 3 more years of Ashcroft
> >to endure)
>
> ::shudder:: That freak just sets off soooo many alarms.
>
> >and being denied to adopt are two quite separate things.
>
> Oh suuuure. Now you're just nit-picking.
I'm like that. And it's so easy with Roy.
>
> >We all
> >know a deal was cut, ,and I personally don't think Paula Poundstone
should
> >have been allowed to keep those kids, who are hardly any angels
>themselves.
>
> Yes, a deal was cut in order to make the sexual charges go
> away as quietly as possible. She doesn't have the kids now, they
> are in foster homes/group homes - something like that. She
> may get them back after she completes treatment, and then
> again - she may not. It's a CPS call from here.
>
> >Poundstone is a vile creepy person who should never have been allowed to
> >adopt to begin with.
>
> At the time, she seemed like an okay foster-parent which then
> morphed into being an adoptive parent, possession being 9/10ths
> of the law. I agree, she's creepy and has always been creepy.
I missed her interview on Dateline. What did she say? Or do? I assume she
cried-- the first refuge of the scoundrel. Witness Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald
(aka Lindsey Korman) on Passions. She put Margaret O'Brien to shame.
>
> > Hopefully her career will now tank and she'll have to
> >get a real job like the rest of us. GR?
>
> Yep. Whatever happens with the kids - her career as a
> comedienne is definitely over. What the hell she'll find to
> do for a living now, I have no idea. She has some friends
> left, maybe they'll give her a job.
As a domestic abuse counselor or an adoption facilitator no doubt.
>
> G(but she's toast)R
Marley
>
>
GR
Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
<snip>
>> Oh suuuure. Now you're just nit-picking.
>
>I'm like that. And it's so easy with Roy.
And fun!
<snip>
>> At the time, she seemed like an okay foster-parent which then
>> morphed into being an adoptive parent, possession being 9/10ths
>> of the law. I agree, she's creepy and has always been creepy.
>
>I missed her interview on Dateline. What did she say? Or do? I assume >she
cried-- the first refuge of the scoundrel.
And "patriotism" is the last, we live in interesting times.
I skipped her Dateline gig, my understanding is that she
blamed her drinking, about which she said - get this - "The
kids *knew* I had a problem." DUH. That's right, dear,
blame the children. I'm sure this will go on the celeb
excuses page. She denied the sexual abuse charges, of
course, and they may well have been false. I don't know if
she cried, but I assume that she did. Much was made of
her being just about "all better" now. I did read something
recently, PP going on about kids trapped in evil orphanages
elsewhere, but her kids can't even be with her at home, and
how *terribly unjust* that is, blah blah blah. She's a vile person.
>Witness Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald
>(aka Lindsey Korman) on Passions. She put Margaret O'Brien to shame.
Impressive! <g> Hey! How's my man Stephano? Still up
to no good, I trust.
>> > Hopefully her career will now tank and she'll have to
>> >get a real job like the rest of us. GR?
>>
>> Yep. Whatever happens with the kids - her career as a
>> comedienne is definitely over. What the hell she'll find to
>> do for a living now, I have no idea. She has some friends
>> left, maybe they'll give her a job.
>
>As a domestic abuse counselor or an adoption facilitator no doubt.
Yep. Or an alcoholism counselor! Oh, did you hear that
Rosie's "written" a book and that in it, she finally comes
out of the closet? If true, it's the only decent thing she's
done in years and I'm sure it was only accidentally decent.
I wonder how Tommy will take the... umm... shock?
GR
PLAYROY1
From: "Marley Greiner" maddog...@worldnet.att.net
Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 9:03 AM
Message-id: <kpW48.5380$S67.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Marley
Uh, Marley, read the post more closely. Of course its not legal. That was my
point. Just because Paula chose to get her family via adoption she is being
persecuted beyond what a bioparent would have to endure. I'm not saying she's
not guilty, I'm just pointing out the inequity and prejudice against those who
are not blood related. I wonder what the courts will do if Susan Smith chooses
to have another child after she gets out of prison after murdering her boys. I
wonder what the same outcome would be if Susan Smith's children were adopted.
>>
PLAYROY1
From: syb...@aol.commanche (GR)
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 12:42 PM
Message-id: <20020128154209...@mb-cj.aol.com>
In article <kpW48.5380$S67.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley
Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
<snip - Yardbitch Roy's lunacy>
>Uh Roy.... court ordered sterilization as far as I know is not legal without
>the victim's consent
Who knew?!? Marley, you're just making this up!
>(so so far yet, but we've to 3 more years of Ashcroft
>to endure)
::shudder:: That freak just sets off soooo many alarms.
>and being denied to adopt are two quite separate things.
Oh suuuure. Now you're just nit-picking.
Actually that IS nitpicking. Amazed I have to point this out on an ADOPTION
board. ugh!
Yes, a deal was cut in order to make the sexual charges go
away as quietly as possible.
Before making such an accusation, I sure hope you have proof to back it up.
That's pretty nasty thing to say if its not true.
PLAYROY1
From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 9:24 AM
Message-id: <3C5437E4...@pacific.net.sg>
PLAYROY1 wrote:
Rupa
I'm afraid I've heard too many stories of judges giving abused children back to
the abusers to beleive that to be true, Rupa. As long as a bioparent can prove
they share the same blood as their child, they can pretty much do what ever
they want. Seems blood = possession by USA courts.
>>
PLAYROY1
From: "Jack Bernhard" jcber...@prodigy.net
Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 10:43 AM
Message-id: <wTX48.15102$Al1.209...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
"PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> blabbered in message
news:20020127114203...@mb-md.aol.com...
> Apparently Paula is allowed to keep her adopted children and her foster
> children, but was convicted of child abuse (not sexual abuse) and driving
under
> the influence which she pleaded guilty to. However, she is never allowed
to
> adopt again. Imagine the uproar if a biological mother had committed the
same
> crimes and was told she has to tie her tubes? And yet there are some that
deny
> prejudice against adoptive parents.
Are you being deliberately argumentative?
No.
You don't see the obvious
difference here?
NO.
I strongly believe that adoptive parents need to be held
to a higher standard than natural parents.
WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
don't they deserve the same protection?
Personally, I can argue that the
present standards aren't high enough. One only has to look at Ms.
Poundstone and yourself as examples of the current shortcomings in the
selection process.
I see. And your evidence to this is???
Anyone can plop out a baby, given the correct plumbing.
It's a natural function. Adoption, OTOH, is a legal mechanism.
True, but if Paula and I are so horrible, how come it is YOU who seems to
reduce the creation of a family to a legal document?
This
mechanism is not purportedly designed to give childless couples the baby
that they somehow need to complete their life, but rather to give the child
a permanent home. This, however, is up for debate.
And so it should be. Adoptive parents have feelings too and since it is the
adoptive parents that make creating a home for these kids possible, I'm not
sure why you want to make that out to be a bad thing.
Regardless, adopting is not a right or a natural function.
Yes it is. At least morally it is.
It is, instead a
privilege that should be granted to those who meet the highest standards.
Parenting is a moral right and ALL parents should have to meet the highest
standards, not just those who have chosen to be parents. Why should the biomom
who (as you say) plops one out after a one night stand and who will more than
likely want to give the child away, be held to a lower standard than paps who
plan and possibly give up their life savings to make a dream come true?
In doing so, they (adoptive parents) should be held to those standards, or lose
the privilege
altogether. They are, after all, raising someone else's kid.
No, they are raising their own kids, Jackass. You would make a very good usa
judge with your neanderthal blood is everything ideas. Fortunately there are
others out there who think that family and real relationships are a tad more
important than sharing DNA.
Jack
>>
PLAYROY1
From: sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen)
Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 1:08 PM
Message-id: <671d8c26.02012...@posting.google.com>
Hardly.
Lainie
Yes, Lainie, I know. And to hell with the kids, right??? Having a biobaby is
a right no matter if you are a murderer, molester or plain old abuser. I'm not
suggesting lowering the standards for adoptive parents. I'm suggesting raising
the standards of bioparents.
>>
PLAYROY1
Marley >>
Odd interpretation of my opinion. No, I just believe that there are a variety
of ways a family comes together. One way is childbirth and another way is
adoption. I don't put a lot of value on biological functions when they are
compared with REAL relationships.
Marley Greiner
I can't' believe what I'm about to say. Neal................ Destroy
Cops................. Where are they when you need them. This country is
full of parents who have indeed lost their kids, some very unfairly and
illegally, to CPS.
Marley
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
Jack Bernhard
> << Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
> From: "Jack Bernhard" jcber...@prodigy.net
> Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 10:43 AM
> Message-id: <wTX48.15102$Al1.209...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
> "PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> blabbered in message
> news:20020127114203...@mb-md.aol.com...
>
>
> > Apparently Paula is allowed to keep her adopted children and her foster
> > children, but was convicted of child abuse (not sexual abuse) and
driving
> under
> > the influence which she pleaded guilty to. However, she is never
allowed
> to
> > adopt again. Imagine the uproar if a biological mother had committed
the
> same
> > crimes and was told she has to tie her tubes? And yet there are some
that
> deny
> > prejudice against adoptive parents.
>
>
> Are you being deliberately argumentative?
>
> No.
Ahh...then you're the same ol' idiot...carry on.
>
> You don't see the obvious
> difference here?
>
> NO.
Heh heh...see above.
>
> I strongly believe that adoptive parents need to be held
> to a higher standard than natural parents.
>
> WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
> don't they deserve the same protection?
<chuckle> You'll never understand, 'cause you view your kids as a means to
your own ends.
>
> Personally, I can argue that the
> present standards aren't high enough. One only has to look at Ms.
> Poundstone and yourself as examples of the current shortcomings in the
> selection process.
>
> I see. And your evidence to this is???
Your lack of a brain springs to mind.
>
>
> Anyone can plop out a baby, given the correct plumbing.
> It's a natural function. Adoption, OTOH, is a legal mechanism.
>
> True, but if Paula and I are so horrible, how come it is YOU who seems to
> reduce the creation of a family to a legal document?
An adoptive family is reduced to a legal document. It's all there is that
ties you to your children. Get used to it. If you wanted it the other way
around, you should've made your kids the old fashioned way. Either that, or
done everyone a favor and stuck to your original plan of remaining
childfree.
Jesus! You're thick
>
> This
> mechanism is not purportedly designed to give childless couples the baby
> that they somehow need to complete their life, but rather to give the
child
> a permanent home. This, however, is up for debate.
>
> And so it should be. Adoptive parents have feelings too
Wah! Your feelings are irrelevent. If for nothing else other than you're a
boob.
and since it is the
> adoptive parents that make creating a home for these kids possible
Damn, if it's such a burden, then why did you go for it? Tell me, do I need
to erect a monument to the pain of apars too?
, I'm not
> sure why you want to make that out to be a bad thing.
What? I've got no problem with giving a kid in need a home. It's the self
serving attitude that you constantly present that I take exception to.
>
> Regardless, adopting is not a right or a natural function.
>
> Yes it is.
I must've missed that part of the Constitution.
At least morally it is.
LOL...according to whose moral standards?
Are you as slackjawed as you sound?
>
> It is, instead a
> privilege that should be granted to those who meet the highest standards.
>
> Parenting is a moral right
Wrong.
and ALL parents should have to meet the highest
> standards, not just those who have chosen to be parents.
Well, in Utopia, maybe. Back here on earth, if you give birth to a kid,
it's yours to raise. If you don't, and want to troll other countries for a
kid or pick one up in your own hometown, you'll just hafta abide by the
rules. Don't like it? Bummer. Don't do it. Nobody is forcing you.
Personally, I think it's just fine and dandy that you all hafta jump through
hoops. There's an amusing quality to the whole thing.
Why should the biomom
> who (as you say) plops one out after a one night stand and who will more
than
> likely want to give the child away,
Actually, the vast majority of women keep their kids. Why? 'Cause they want
to. That's why you had to troll Russia, remember?
be held to a lower standard than paps who
> plan and possibly give up their life savings to make a dream come true?
'Cause it's her kid. Damn, you're stupid. Fuck your dreams and your life
savings...nobody cares.
>
> In doing so, they (adoptive parents) should be held to those standards, or
lose
> the privilege
> altogether. They are, after all, raising someone else's kid.
>
> No, they are raising their own kids, Jackass.
Ahhh....that doesn't fit in with your whole John Lennon sappy sweet image,
either. Didn't he say Imagine no possessions? <chuckle> I wonder if you
can. Heheh... That is your favorite ditty, isn't it?
You would make a very good usa
> judge with your neanderthal blood is everything ideas.
Nah...my history of arson and public urination would pretty much keep me off
the bench.
Fortunately there are
> others out there who think that family and real relationships are a tad
more
> important than sharing DNA.
Power to the Paps! Right on! (my apologies to the late Mr. Lennon)
Jack
By the way, Roy...they're still not your kids. Heheh.
rkbose
> From: sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen)
>
> Nobody is entitled to adopt, there exists no right to adopt. However,
> the courts in the U.S. have upheld the right of people to reproduce.
> It isn't a matter of prejudice, it is a matter of biology.
>
> Lainie
>
> Yes, Lainie, I know. And to hell with the kids, right??? Having a biobaby is
> a right no matter if you are a murderer, molester or plain old abuser. I'm not
> suggesting lowering the standards for adoptive parents. I'm suggesting raising
> the standards of bioparents.
You and Sue T!
Sue Tretter has been pushing the idea of parental licensing for years.
There are times I'd buy it, except that administering it would be the ultimate
power trip and nightmare.
Rupa
Marley Greiner
> From: "Jack Bernhard" jcber...@prodigy.net
> Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 10:43 AM
> Message-id: <wTX48.15102$Al1.209...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
> "PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> blabbered in message
> news:20020127114203...@mb-md.aol.com...
>
>
> > Apparently Paula is allowed to keep her adopted children and her foster
> > children, but was convicted of child abuse (not sexual abuse) and
driving
> under
> > the influence which she pleaded guilty to. However, she is never
allowed
> to
> > adopt again. Imagine the uproar if a biological mother had committed
the
> same
> > crimes and was told she has to tie her tubes? And yet there are some
that
> deny
> > prejudice against adoptive parents.
>
>
> Are you being deliberately argumentative?
>
> No.
>
Jack:
> You don't see the obvious
> difference here?
>
> NO.
>
Jack:
> I strongly believe that adoptive parents need to be held
> to a higher standard than natural parents.
>
> WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
> don't they deserve the same protection?
Because adoptive parents are rearing somebody else's children. Paps are
vetted through a system that makes sure the kids aren't being placed with
crackheads, incompents, crazy people, and pedophiles Do know anything
about the international trafficking in children for prostitution? For
sweatshops? Do you think any pervert, any pimp, and any cadet, sweat shop
operator, any scam artist should be able to adopt kids to turn them out?
Adoption is not a cure for infertility, it is not a reproductive right. In
fact, I doubt if even the staunchist pro-adoption within the adoption trade
industry or in the government will argue that adoption is a right. Whjy
don't you take your statement to the Congressional Adoption Coalition in WDC
and see how far it gets you.
>
Jack:
snip
>
Jack:
> Anyone can plop out a baby, given the correct plumbing.
> It's a natural function. Adoption, OTOH, is a legal mechanism.
>
Roy:
> True, but if Paula and I are so horrible, how come it is YOU who seems to
> reduce the creation of a family to a legal document?
Adoption is a legal fiction. Ask anybody who's tried to get their records.
Go sit in the House Judiciary Committee hearing in Sacramento and listen to
two hours of crap about how the government has to protect the "privacy" of
courageous nmothers and the sanctity of the afamily. Everybody need
"protection" but the adopted person, who has no identity rights and should
be grateful they weren't aborted. They only need protection from
themselves.
>
Jack:
> This
> mechanism is not purportedly designed to give childless couples the baby
> that they somehow need to complete their life, but rather to give the
child
> a permanent home. This, however, is up for debate.
>
Roy:
> And so it should be. Adoptive parents have feelings too and since it is
the
> adoptive parents that make creating a home for these kids possible, I'm
not
> sure why you want to make that out to be a bad thing.
Who said it is? Is the government suppose to protecting the feeling of
wannabe mommies and daddies? Since when is the state in the therapy
business?
>
Jack:
> Regardless, adopting is not a right or a natural function.
>
Roy:
> Yes it is. At least morally it is.
Not it is not. Ask a lawyer. Tell me where there is a legal right to
adopt? In the US Constitution? In the Russian Constitution? No one has
the *right* to adopt, anywhere. In some culture and countries adoption
isn't even legal or at least officially condoned. Adoption wasn't even
codified in the England until 1923 I think.
>
Jack:
It is, instead a
> privilege that should be granted to those who meet the highest standards.
>
Roy:
> Parenting is a moral right and ALL parents should have to meet the highest
> standards, not just those who have chosen to be parents.
Why should the biomom
> who (as you say) plops one out after a one night stand and who will more
than
> likely want to give the child away, be held to a lower standard than paps
who
> plan and possibly give up their life savings to make a dream come true?
Because biological parenting is the norm.It's natural. I know that's a
diffciult concept for you to accept. Do you believe as Sue To does, that
aparents should be licensed? Should everybody who biologically produces a
child just automatically give it up so some deserving, finanacially secure
infertile can have it? You know what, you're just jealous. This sounds
ridiculous, but you're just jealous that you can't do it. While I see
infertility as a gift from G-d, you see it as terminal illness. Without a
sprog of your own, you line will die out. gak! We childfree by choice
people must really torque you. Women who have abortions must really torque
you.
>
Jack:
> In doing so, they (adoptive parents) should be held to those standards, or
lose
> the privilege
> altogether. They are, after all, raising someone else's kid.
>
Roy:
> No, they are raising their own kids, Jackass.
Did you and your wife biologically reproduce your kids during some secret
life in Russia as spies and then put them in Dom Rybionik #6 until you could
come back later and adopt them like Loretta Young did with her daughter
JudyLewis? Nobody is saying that adopted children are not part of their
afamilies, but they are not biological members unless you've been out
sporking your sister.
Roy:
You would make a very good usa
> judge with your neanderthal blood is everything ideas. Fortunately there
are
> others out there who think that family and real relationships are a tad
more
> important than sharing DNA.
And you think that's it's nothing. Entire cultures are built on blood. I
dare you to try to grab a Chechen baby next time you go back to the FSU. Or
maybe we should all encourage it.
Marley
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
Marley Greiner
And those who are biological related and reared within their biological
families don't have real relationships? My guess is that it's 6 of 1 and
half a dozen of the other. I know plenty of adopted people who have no
relationship or only a small relationship with their aparents. Just the
same is true for biological families. Get over it, Roy. The family is a
social construct whose purpose is to maintain and inculcate the values of
patriarchy. I'm sure you're doing a fine job of maintaining the status quo.
Marley
>
Marley Greiner
"Jack Bernhard" <jcber...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Qvo58.60487$ii6.291...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020128212812...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> > << Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
> > From: "Jack Bernhard" jcber...@prodigy.net
> > Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 10:43 AM
> > Message-id: <wTX48.15102$Al1.209...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
> >
>
> You would make a very good usa
> > judge with your neanderthal blood is everything ideas.
>
> Nah...my history of arson and public urination would pretty much keep me
off
> the bench.
>
> Fortunately there are
> > others out there who think that family and real relationships are a tad
> more
> > important than sharing DNA.
>
> Power to the Paps! Right on! (my apologies to the late Mr. Lennon)
>
> Jack
>
> By the way, Roy...they're still not your kids. Heheh.
One can only hope that Roy's kids grow up to be Li'l Bastards.
Marley
>
>
Marley Greiner
Not particularly. Plenty of bio-parents lose their parental rights
temporily and permanently ever day. How do you thnk the foster care system
got so clogged up?
I'm not saying she's
> not guilty, I'm just pointing out the inequity and prejudice against those
who
> are not blood related. I wonder what the courts will do if Susan Smith
chooses
> to have another child after she gets out of prison after murdering her
boys.
Not a damned thing, though some social worker would no doubt nick the kid as
soon as it's born.
I
> wonder what the same outcome would be if Susan Smith's children were
adopted.
Same thing.
You are way too paranoid. Don't you have to go make some borscht butterbrod
or something?
Marley
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
Marley Greiner
"GR" <syb...@aol.commanche> wrote in message
> In article <4gj58.7463$mU4.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley
> Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Oh suuuure. Now you're just nit-picking.
> >
> >I'm like that. And it's so easy with Roy.
>
> And fun!
>
> <snip>
>
> >> At the time, she seemed like an okay foster-parent which then
> >> morphed into being an adoptive parent, possession being 9/10ths
> >> of the law. I agree, she's creepy and has always been creepy.
> >
> >I missed her interview on Dateline. What did she say? Or do? I assume
>she
> cried-- the first refuge of the scoundrel.
>
> And "patriotism" is the last, we live in interesting times.
Did she happen to wear a flag sweater?
>
> I skipped her Dateline gig, my understanding is that she
> blamed her drinking, about which she said - get this - "The
> kids *knew* I had a problem." DUH. That's right, dear,
> blame the children.
Typical of alcholics. The kids have to "parent" the parents. As if being
adopted out of fostercare didn't screw them up enough.
I'm sure this will go on the celeb
> excuses page. She denied the sexual abuse charges, of
> course, and they may well have been false. I don't know if
> she cried, but I assume that she did. Much was made of
> her being just about "all better" now.
They're always "all better" when they are forced into treatment and get
their pictures spread all over the news and TV. I wonder what Joan would
have done under the same circumstances. She'd probably have shown a tad
more class. Joan wasn't into confessionals.
I did read something
> recently, PP going on about kids trapped in evil orphanages
> elsewhere, but her kids can't even be with her at home, and
> how *terribly unjust* that is, blah blah blah. She's a vile person.
Vile is right. How about her kids being trapped in fostercare once more?
>
> >Witness Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald
> >(aka Lindsey Korman) on Passions. She put Margaret O'Brien to shame.
>
> Impressive! <g> Hey! How's my man Stephano? Still up
> to no good, I trust.
That's DOOL, and he's sort of dead . He and Ken Corday got into it and he
didn't renew his contract. He's over on B&B right now, which I don't watch,
and hear he's doing quite an admirable job. Steffie may be gone but not
forgotten. Lexie has taken over is evil ways for the time being, and the
baby switching line is coming to a head right now. Lexie does need some
tutoring in evil, though. She may be the evil amom from hell, but she
probably wouldn't hold her unrequited love interests in an underground
dungeon or stick computer chips into her friends' brains. She's just
suffering from major baby rabies. I'd like to see Abe take up with Glenn's
baby custody attorney myself or go back with Eve (?) Nichole and Brandon's
mother. And just wait till the shit hits over Abe's paternity of Brandon.
I hear Joe Mascolo might be back, but it wil be awhile--and I heard that a
long time ago. Hopefully B&B will let him use his talents better. Have you
ever heard him sing Italian opera?
>
> >> > Hopefully her career will now tank and she'll have to
> >> >get a real job like the rest of us. GR?
> >>
> >> Yep. Whatever happens with the kids - her career as a
> >> comedienne is definitely over. What the hell she'll find to
> >> do for a living now, I have no idea. She has some friends
> >> left, maybe they'll give her a job.
> >
> >As a domestic abuse counselor or an adoption facilitator no doubt.
>
> Yep. Or an alcoholism counselor! Oh, did you hear that
> Rosie's "written" a book and that in it, she finally comes
> out of the closet?
gak! Who would....or never mind.
If true, it's the only decent thing she's
> done in years and I'm sure it was only accidentally decent.
> I wonder how Tommy will take the... umm... shock?
>
> GR
Dear oh dear. Is it me or is he looking a bit ummm limp lately?
Marley
>
rkbose
> "PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote
> > WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
> > don't they deserve the same protection?
>
> Because adoptive parents are rearing somebody else's children. Paps are
> vetted through a system that makes sure the kids aren't being placed with
> crackheads, incompents, crazy people, and pedophiles Do know anything
> about the international trafficking in children for prostitution? For
> sweatshops? Do you think any pervert, any pimp, and any cadet, sweat shop
> operator, any scam artist should be able to adopt kids to turn them out?
> Adoption is not a cure for infertility, it is not a reproductive right.
Society is built on the right and duty of parents to raise the children they
produce. A few societies tried modifications to this -- such as the kibbutz --
but generally speaking, it didn't work. Western societies do limit this right in
cases where the parents are perceived as abusive or neglectful.
A corollary to this is that people have the right to bear children. That is a
right that societies have modified or limited, as China for instance has done.
This is usually seen as a right that can be modified for social reasons, but not
usually for the sake of the child, actual or prospective. OTOH, this could
change in Europe -- someone successfully sued for wrongful birth. (A person was
born severely handicapped as a result of the mother having German measles. A
doctor misdiagnosed the German measles. The doctor got sued.) Perhaps in the
end, there will be parental licensing. I think not, though, because it seems
that in most western countries, the trend is towards bearing a very limited
number of children, anyway -- zero to negative pop growth, not counting
immigration.
Stranger adoption for altruistic reasons is close to being a rarity in many
cultures. Stranger acquistion of children for such ulterior motives as Marley
describes -- prostitution, child-labor, props for beggary -- is not.
However you cut it, however much your adopted children are part of your family
-- and they are, I completely agree -- one cannot make adoption and birth
strictly parallel. IMO
Rupa
destorycps
play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1) wrote
> the courts in the U.S. have upheld the right of people to reproduce.
Destroycps!
Maybe. But in reality, there are no sacred parental rights in America.
In other words, there is no right for a parent to *keep* a kid thus
"reproduced".
A new mother who has had or is having a CPS case will not be able to
leave the hospital with her baby if the CPS social worker at the
hospital is on her job. The social security laws say that CPS can get
funding without showing "reasonable efforts" to keep the baby "in the
home" if a parent has had a prior involuntary parental rights
termination. CPS interprets this law (and this is debatable legally)
to mean that it may take a kid from such a parent without cause.
United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 7, Section 671
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode42&STEMMER=en&WORDS=671+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/42/671.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match
(This long URL probably won't work unless you past it together in your
addy window.)
(a) Requisite features of State plan
In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part, it
shall
have a plan approved by the Secretary which - ...
(15) provides that - ...
(D) reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) shall
not
be required to be made with respect to a parent of a child if ...
(IV)...
(iii) the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have
been terminated involuntarily;
Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!!
Lainie Petersen
> Yes, Lainie, I know. And to hell with the kids, right??? Having a biobaby is
> a right no matter if you are a murderer, molester or plain old abuser. I'm not
> suggesting lowering the standards for adoptive parents. I'm suggesting raising
> the standards of bioparents.
And how do you intend to do that, Roy?
Lainie
AdoptaDad
>I can't' believe what I'm about to say. Neal................
>Destroy Cops................. Where are they when you need them.
You can find them at alt.support.child-protective-services.
>This country is full of parents who have indeed lost their kids,
>some very unfairly and illegally, to CPS.
Some fairly and legally, although you won't find them anywhere. They're all
amazingly 100% innocent of any wrong-doing, every last one of them. When was
the last time you ran across a parent who admits to abusing and/or neglecting
their child? There are none.
I know, I know. Their lack of confession does not make them guilty. By the
same token, their profession of innocence doesn't make that so, either.
Dad
Guava Baby
> However you cut it, however much your adopted children are part of your family
> -- and they are, I completely agree -- one cannot make adoption and birth
> strictly parallel. IMO
The key distinction in most common law countries is that the right to conceive is
strictly up to the adults involved. Once a child is born, however (and sometimes
even before that), the child attains certain rights. In the case of adoption, the
state has a responsibility to ensure that a child's rights are protected by placing
it with fit parents. As Rupa mentioned, there may come a time when the child's
rights are considered *before* conception, but this is not currently the case.
Leigh
Karen
> and since it is the
>> adoptive parents that make creating a home for these kids possible
>
>Damn, if it's such a burden, then why did you go for it? Tell me, do I need
>to erect a monument to the pain of apars too?>>
Could you make it out of mashed potatoes?
Marilynn
> In article <kpW48.5380$S67.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley
> Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> <snip - Yardbitch Roy's lunacy>
>
> >Uh Roy.... court ordered sterilization as far as I know is not legal without
> >the victim's consent
>
> Who knew?!? Marley, you're just making this up!
>
> >(so so far yet, but we've to 3 more years of Ashcroft
> >to endure)
>
> ::shudder:: That freak just sets off soooo many alarms.
>
> >and being denied to adopt are two quite separate things.
>
> Oh suuuure. Now you're just nit-picking.
>
> >We all
> >know a deal was cut, ,and I personally don't think Paula Poundstone should
> >have been allowed to keep those kids, who are hardly any angels >themselves.
>
> Yes, a deal was cut in order to make the sexual charges go
> away as quietly as possible. She doesn't have the kids now, they
> are in foster homes/group homes - something like that. She
> may get them back after she completes treatment, and then
> again - she may not. It's a CPS call from here.
>
It is fairly common for "deals to be cut," as you put it, with CPS
when a parent has money and an attorney who actually fights them.
That is at least a contributing factor as to why the vast majority of
CPS cases deal with poverty/neglect as opposed to actual physical
abuse. Most parents get state-appointed attorneys who are getting paid
next to nothing and have in several instances been brought before
their state bars for malpractice because of the way they "processed"
the parents' defenses.
Marilynn
Marilynn
in. Certainly we read about instances where "abused" (or more likely
neglected) children who are returned to their parents.
However, it is equally true that children are being removed before any
harm has been done. The CPSWatch.com website will tell you about
Cheryl Barnes' infant who was removed at the hospital, and not
returned until after a successful appeal, and after suffering brain
damage and abuse atthe hands of the foster parent.
I personally know of infants taken at just a few days old because of
an unadjudicated case and not yet returned, nor placed with family
members, etc.
One important thing to remember in dealing with CPS is that IT DEPENDS
ON WHERE YOU ARE IN THE COUNTRY, some jurisdictions are worse than
others. In Wichita KS, only 1 in 3 children taken ever make it home
again. Florida, Massachusetts, Arizona - other horrible places to have
to encounter CPS -- for any reason, whether you be parent or child.
Marilynn
PLAYROY1
From: khf...@aol.comnothanku (Karen)
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 7:34 AM
Message-id: <20020129103459...@mb-ma.aol.com>
Why not? I mean if the poor biomom can boo hoo her way into free cake and yet
gets to eat it too, if the adoptees can boo hoo his or her selves into sympathy
for the loss of their biodonors, then why not the adoptive parents? Its not
like we made a mistake we could have prevented and now want the world to feel
sorry for us. Its not like we were given the world and threw it back in
someone's face because it wasn't good enough. All adoptive parents do is
commit the crime of wanting a family and wanting to consider the child who was
supposedly left for someone else to care, their own. The way I see it there is
plenty of room to play victim all around.
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <ZPo58.7581$Ab1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020128213137...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> << Laine Laine, Roy *believes* that adoption *is* reproduction.
>
> Marley >>
>
> Odd interpretation of my opinion. No, I just believe that there are a
variety
> of ways a family comes together. One way is childbirth and another way is
> adoption. I don't put a lot of value on biological functions when they
are
> compared with REAL relationships.
And those who are biological related and reared within their biological
families don't have real relationships?
Again, an odd interpretation of what I said. No, the relationships are real,
the fantasy about how important the blood ties are are not. I'm guessing MOST
bioparents would probably not give their children away if they suddenly found
out their child didn't share their blood. Most, that is. I did see a 20/20
show where a dad found out his seven year old son was not his biokid and he
immediately dumped him. But this guy was also your typical trailor trash.
Sorry, didn't mean to offend you all.
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <3C561480...@pacific.net.sg>
PLAYROY1 wrote:
You and Sue T!
Rupa
But until they figure out a way it is still prejudice to hold adoptive parents
to a higher standard, IMO.
>>
Marilynn
> Marley Greiner wrote:
>
> > "PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote
> > > WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
> > > don't they deserve the same protection?
> >>
> cultures. Stranger acquistion of children for such ulterior motives as Marley
> describes -- prostitution, child-labor, props for beggary -- is not.
>
> However you cut it, however much your adopted children are part of your family
> -- and they are, I completely agree -- one cannot make adoption and birth
> strictly parallel. IMO
>
> Rupa
"Altruistic reasons" even have to come into question these days - with
the government giving tax credits and thousands a year to adopt
"special needs" children. When you hear about families like the
Remsen's - $40,000 a year for adopting - you have to wonder are they
really screening the potential adopters or not?
Marilynn
Karen
>> and since it is the
>>> adoptive parents that make creating a home for these kids possible
>>
>Jack:
>>Damn, if it's such a burden, then why did you go for it? Tell me, do I need
>>to erect a monument to the pain of apars too?>>
>
>
RoyToy:>Why not? I mean if the poor biomom can boo hoo her way into free cake
and
>yet
>gets to eat it too, if the adoptees can boo hoo his or her selves into
>sympathy
>for the loss of their biodonors, then why not the adoptive parents? Its not
>like we made a mistake we could have prevented and now want the world to feel
>sorry for us. Its not like we were given the world and threw it back in
>someone's face because it wasn't good enough. All adoptive parents do is
>commit the crime of wanting a family and wanting to consider the child who
>was
>supposedly left for someone else to care, their own. The way I see it there
>is
>plenty of room to play victim all around.
>
Oh fuck off Roy. When I want to talk to you about something....oh wait a
minute....there is no chance I am going to want to talk to you about anything.
LilMtnCbn
>Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
>From: play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1)
>Date: 1/29/02 10:19 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020129121957...@mb-md.aol.com>
Call the waaambulance Roy. You can't hand out babies to everybody who thinks
they deserve them. If you didn't want to jump through hoops, you should have
grown your own.
LilMtnCbn
>Message-id: <20020129121436...@mb-md.aol.com>
...and you do it so well.
Linda Fortney
Jack Bernhard <jcber...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Damn, if it's such a burden, then why did you go for it? Tell me, do I need
>to erect a monument to the pain of apars too?
>
No, Jack. No monument needed. Everything is Kim's fault anyway. I don't
know precisely how Playroy's jackass attitude is Kim's fault, but it is
anyway. Perhaps she used her powerful evil mind ray when Playroy forgot
to put on his aluminum foil hat.
Linda
Yet another a-par for whom PLAYROY does not speak.
Linda Fortney
Playroy said:
>>
>>But until they figure out a way it is still prejudice to hold adoptive
>>parents
>>to a higher standard, IMO.
>
Sorry to tag onto another post, but my reader is still muy screwed up.
Roy, this statement is yet another manifestation of your playing the "I'm
the one and only daddy" game. It's a ridiculous assertion and implies an
unhealthy and massive sense of entitlement to a child.
Reality check Roy. You and I adopted because we could not have
bio-kids. Forming a family through adoption is different than having
bio-kids. Note that I did not say adoption is an inferior choice, or
second best. Adoption is a second choice. And there is no way on earth I
could love a child more than I love my daughter, who is my real daughter
BTW.
But Roy, here's the rub. In adoption there is an element of choice of
parents. Evidence may infer that some people would be better parents than
others. It is sensible then to select the more qualified people to be
parents. Therefore a-pars are (and should be) held to a higher standard
before they are chosen to raise someone else's child.
Do you ever, ever remember that your kids don't have your genes? I am far
from being a genetic determinist, but my daughter's beautiful smile did
not come from me. Hr sense of humor does, though.
Linda
rkbose
> "Altruistic reasons" even have to come into question these days - with
> the government giving tax credits and thousands a year to adopt
> "special needs" children. When you hear about families like the
> Remsen's - $40,000 a year for adopting - you have to wonder are they
> really screening the potential adopters or not?
Well, the intent is good enough; the implementation sometimes sucks.
And the idea is that it's meant to be an altruistic adoption, but then again, some adoptions
are not.
Rupa
rkbose
> But until they figure out a way it is still prejudice to hold adoptive parents
> to a higher standard, IMO.
Why? While it's true there are abusive parents among bios, and excellent parents
among strangers, the fact is that when controls are poor, strangers mostly take
children for nefarious purposes. (Read the latest Time mag.) Adoptive parents
have to be held to a higher standard to reduce the probability of harm to a child.
The other reason to have a higher standard is because you can. In the US, there
are more waiting homes than waiting babies. This is a Good Thing. It also means
that a higher standard can be applied. Whereas with kids born to their raising
parents, there is no way at present to apply that standard.
Rupa
Alex Wolfson
>
> PLAYROY1 wrote:
>
> > But until they figure out a way it is still prejudice to hold adoptive parents
> > to a higher standard, IMO.
>
> Why? While it's true there are abusive parents among bios, and excellent parents
> among strangers, the fact is that when controls are poor, strangers mostly take
> children for nefarious purposes. (Read the latest Time mag.) Adoptive parents
> have to be held to a higher standard to reduce the probability of harm to a child.
Might I add here that if it is true that aparents are held to a higher standard,
I neither resent it nor fear it.
ReneeKarynRacine
>variety
>of ways a family comes together. One way is childbirth and another way is
>adoption. I don't put a lot of value on biological functions when they are
>compared with REAL relationships.
Blah Blah Blah Blah,
Roy, as usual your words have as much meaning to me as those of Charlie Browns
teacher.
What would you know about a real relationship? It's bad enough that any SW
judged you fit to be a parent. We can only hope that in your case, NATURE is
truly stronger than NURTURE. And, we can only thank some kids lucky stars that
no biology of yours ever produced them.
ReneeKarynRacine
>
Your existanse offends humanity. We're used to it.
ReneeKarynRacine
>suggesting lowering the standards for adoptive parents. I'm suggesting
>raising
>the standards of bioparents.
>
It's a good thing this didn't happen before you were born, because you probably
wouldn't be here now would you??
LilMtnCbn
>From: reneekar...@aol.com (ReneeKarynRacine)
>Date: 1/29/02 12:04 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020129140411...@mb-fy.aol.com>
>
>>Sorry, didn't mean to offend you all.
>>
>
>Your existanse offends humanity. We're used to it.
==spew!!== LOL!
Jack Bernhard
"Karen" <khf...@aol.comnothanku> wrote in message
news:20020129103459...@mb-ma.aol.com...
more permanent. So in the interest of fairness, I have in mind something in
bronze. We can use Roy as the centerpiece. We'll hafta buff him up a bit
and give him the Stalin era proletariat look. He'll be protectively
cradling a perfect HWI up to his left shoulder. His right hand will be
wielding the "Sword of Adoptive Justice" and he'll be cutting a swath
through whorish, tattooed birthmothers who look up at him from their knees
with a mixture of pleading and awe. They'll be offering up babies with open
adoption agreements safety pinned to their sagging, loaded Pampers.
However, our hero will pay them no heed. His jaw will be set and his
strong, yet compassionate eyes will be fixed upon paradise; the cutest
little cape on Apple Pie Lane in Anytown, USA (complete with picket fence
and late model mini-van).
What do ya think?
Jack
Julia
Your monuments have everything, Jack. They are perfection. Do you do
this professionally?
Julia
Julia
And I for one have no problem with adoptive parents being held to a
higher standard. It is unequal, but by its very nature adoption is
unequal.
Julia
Jmmbear
Bernhard" <jcber...@prodigy.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
>From: "Jack Bernhard" <jcber...@prodigy.net>
>Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:43:05 GMT
Jack, you forgot all the motercycles that the bmoms were riding in on. Also we
must put a trailer in there somewhere.
Jeanne
LilMtnCbn
>From: jmm...@aol.com (Jmmbear)
>Date: 1/29/02 9:42 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020129234225...@mb-dh.aol.com>
I'm sure Roy will donate his just as soon as he pays off that 2nd mortgage
since it's for HIS shrine, and all.
GR
Maril...@yahoo.com (Marilynn) writes:
<snip>
GR:
>> Yes, a deal was cut in order to make the sexual charges go
>> away as quietly as possible. She doesn't have the kids now, they
>> are in foster homes/group homes - something like that. She
>> may get them back after she completes treatment, and then
>> again - she may not. It's a CPS call from here.
>>
>
>It is fairly common for "deals to be cut," as you put it, with CPS
>when a parent has money and an attorney who actually fights them.
Of course. We'll see if Poundstone can pull that off at
some point in the future.
>That is at least a contributing factor as to why the vast majority of
>CPS cases deal with poverty/neglect as opposed to actual physical
>abuse.
The American government is no friend to the poor and never
has been much of one.
>Most parents get state-appointed attorneys who are getting paid
>next to nothing
As does just about every poor citizen accused of any crime
or "crime."
>and have in several instances been brought before
>their state bars for malpractice because of the way they "processed"
>the parents' defenses.
Well, this is hardly surprising given the number of genuinely
stupid attorneys taking up valuable office space these days.
GR
GR
(PLAYROY1) writes:
<snip>
GR:
>>Yes, a deal was cut in order to make the sexual charges go
>>away as quietly as possible.
>
>Before making such an accusation, I sure hope you have proof to back it up.
>That's pretty nasty thing to say if its not true.
Really? Is it nastier than your stupid and totally wrong
statement that those kids had simply been handed back
to her after her convictions on other charges involving
endangering those kids? I sure hope you had proof to
back it up. That's a pretty nasty thing to say if it's not
true. DUH.
She cut a deal, you witless bitch. Something which (get this!)
happens every day all across this great land. The charge of
sexual abuse existed. Everyone (except you, evidently)
knew all about it. Presto! It's *dropped* and she pleads to
"lesser" charges. Hello??? Anybody home??? Anybody
home with a basic familiarity with how the American justice
system works??? It's called a p l e a b a r g a i n. If we
didn't have plea bargains, the American justice system would
collapse under its own putrid weight. Had Poundstone not taken
advantage of this handy tool, she'd still be trying, desperately,
to get out from under the sexual abuse charges.
So listen bitch, I've got a little bargain for *you*. If you stop typing,
I'll buy you that spiffy new rake down at the Home Depot.
GR
Steve White
syb...@aol.commanche (GR) wrote:
> She cut a deal, you witless bitch. Something which (get this!)
> happens every day all across this great land. The charge of
> sexual abuse existed.
So how solid was the evidence? I would have thought that the DA would
just love to nail her to the wall as an example, unless either the
evidence was iffy, or the DA had plans to move up Ho'wood style.
steve
AdoptaDad
>Message-id: <3C56E896...@pacific.net.sg>
< snip >
>The other reason to have a higher standard is because you can. In
>the US, there are more waiting homes than waiting babies.
Yes, but there are more waiting older children than there are families
willing to adopt them.
>This is a Good Thing.
Thank you, Martha Stewart. : P
>It also means that a higher standard can be applied.
If demand that far exceeds supply results in the ability to apply a higher
standard, I guess the converse is also true when it comes to this country's
older children. We need more good foster homes and families willing to
consider adopting older children.
Dad
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <20020129140149...@mb-fy.aol.com>
Blah Blah Blah Blah,
Gee thanks... :0)
>>
PLAYROY1
From: lilm...@aol.com (LilMtnCbn)
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 9:29 AM
Message-id: <20020129122914...@mb-mw.aol.com>
>Sue Tretter has been pushing the idea of parental licensing for years.
>There are times I'd buy it, except that administering it would be the
>ultimate
>power trip and nightmare.
>
>Rupa
>
>But until they figure out a way it is still prejudice to hold adoptive
>parents
>to a higher standard, IMO. -- Roy
Call the waaambulance Roy. You can't hand out babies to everybody who thinks
they deserve them. If you didn't want to jump through hoops, you should have
grown your own.
Why not? Anyone who spreads their legs can have one.
>>
LilMtnCbn
>Message-id: <20020130101754...@mb-cu.aol.com>
So spread your legs and have one. If you can't, it doesn't mean that you
should be automatically entitled to someone else's kid just because you want
one.
PLAYROY1
From: lfor...@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 10:01 AM
Message-id: <a36o1r$7...@marlowe.umd.edu>
Playroy said:
>>
>>But until they figure out a way it is still prejudice to hold adoptive
>>parents
>>to a higher standard, IMO.
>
Sorry to tag onto another post, but my reader is still muy screwed up.
Roy, this statement is yet another manifestation of your playing the "I'm
the one and only daddy" game. It's a ridiculous assertion and implies an
unhealthy and massive sense of entitlement to a child.
Sorry, I totally disagree. I am the only daddy to my kids. I happen to
believe that to be a parent you must 'parent'. As far as entitlement goes,
your damn right I'm entitled to be their daddy and more important than that
they are entitled to have a daddy, one that actually parents. Ironic you speak
of entitlement on my part when others will claim parenthood by simply donating
sperm and/or egg.
Reality check Roy. You and I adopted because we could not have
bio-kids.
No, maybe you adopted because you couldn't have a biokid. We adopted because
that's how we always planned to have our family.
Forming a family through adoption is different than having
bio-kids.
As different as a cesarian is from natural childbirth.
Note that I did not say adoption is an inferior choice, or
second best. Adoption is a second choice.
Not for me it wasn't. Never was.
And there is no way on earth I
could love a child more than I love my daughter, who is my real daughter
BTW.
But Roy, here's the rub. In adoption there is an element of choice of
parents. Evidence may infer that some people would be better parents than
others. It is sensible then to select the more qualified people to be
parents. Therefore a-pars are (and should be) held to a higher standard
before they are chosen to raise someone else's child.
I don't get your reasoning. Just because there is a 'choice'? you think the
aparents should be held to a higher standard. I believe the vast majority of
aparents plan and save and live to be parents. That alone puts them head and
shoulders above most other parents. In other words they ARE the higher
standard already. As opposed to the bioparent with the accident in their
belly.
Do you ever, ever remember that your kids don't have your genes? I am far
from being a genetic determinist, but my daughter's beautiful smile did
not come from me. Hr sense of humor does, though.
Linda
One of the advantages of having known someone for a very long time (my wife and
I are together for almost 27 years) is that you get to see how much you grow
and share, even smiles, and voice. My brother and his wife who have been
together over 30 years have even begun to look like each other physically.
Nope, I don't hold much stock in genes. Way too much evidence against their
importance to give them any credit. Nice post, Linda. Thanks. --- Roy
>>
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <3C56E896...@pacific.net.sg>
PLAYROY1 wrote:
> But until they figure out a way it is still prejudice to hold adoptive
parents
> to a higher standard, IMO.
Why? While it's true there are abusive parents among bios, and excellent
parents
among strangers, the fact is that when controls are poor, strangers mostly take
children for nefarious purposes. (Read the latest Time mag.) Adoptive parents
have to be held to a higher standard to reduce the probability of harm to a
child.
What 'strangers' are you talking about? An adoptive parent is no more a
stranger to his/her child than a bioparent. You can hardly compare an aparent
with a caretaker, nanny or babysitter. Most aparents plan for years, want
children most of their lives and lay out as much money as it costs to buy a car
or a house. Certainly there are good and bad parents, bio and adoptive, but
I'm talking about the majority. Given the choice of a bioparent babysitter
for my kids or an adoptiveparent babysitter for my kids, I would trust the
adoptive parent first, because of the proven overwhelming value an adoptive
parent puts on children.
The other reason to have a higher standard is because you can. In the US, there
are more waiting homes than waiting babies. This is a Good Thing. It also means
that a higher standard can be applied.
Placing a higher standards simply because you can, to me, is a poor reason.
Women didn't have the right to vote, because men 'could' keep it from them. We
had slaves because we could too. All I'm saying is that there is all this
hoopla about placing higher standards on aparents when its not needed and
nobody says a thing about bioparents. Why is the focus on who can be
controlled instead of what is best for the kids?
Whereas with kids born to their raising
parents, there is no way at present to apply that standard.
Rupa
And I doubt anyone would even if they could. But that's just my opinion.
>>
PLAYROY1
standard, I guess the converse is also true when it comes to this country's
older children. We need more good foster homes and families willing to
consider adopting older children.
Dad
>>
Wow, adopta, we finally agree on something. I might add though that there are
also tens of thousands of older children in Russia and Kazakhstan as well. And
these kids will not have the advantages of a country like the USA. Their fate
is living in factory dorms, prostitution and suicide.
PLAYROY1
higher standard. It is unequal, but by its very nature adoption is
unequal.
Julia
>>
Its unequal because of the prejudice.
PLAYROY1
From: khf...@aol.comnothanku (Karen)
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 9:28 AM
Message-id: <20020129122841...@mb-ma.aol.com>
>RoyToy:
>> and since it is the
>>> adoptive parents that make creating a home for these kids possible
>>
>Jack:
>>Damn, if it's such a burden, then why did you go for it? Tell me, do I need
>>to erect a monument to the pain of apars too?>>
>
Me:>Could you make it out of mashed potatoes?
>
RoyToy:>Why not? I mean if the poor biomom can boo hoo her way into free cake
and
>yet
>gets to eat it too, if the adoptees can boo hoo his or her selves into
>sympathy
>for the loss of their biodonors, then why not the adoptive parents? Its not
>like we made a mistake we could have prevented and now want the world to feel
>sorry for us. Its not like we were given the world and threw it back in
>someone's face because it wasn't good enough. All adoptive parents do is
>commit the crime of wanting a family and wanting to consider the child who
>was
>supposedly left for someone else to care, their own. The way I see it there
>is
>plenty of room to play victim all around.
>
Oh fuck off Roy. When I want to talk to you about something....oh wait a
minute....there is no chance I am going to want to talk to you about anything.
LOL!!! Guess I struck a nerve. Sometimes the truth hurts, huh?
>>
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <dXC58.25590$rX2.246...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
What do ya think?
Jack
Hey, sounds like a better world than the one you and some of the other nuts in
here put forth. haha. I like it...--- Roy
>>
PLAYROY1
From: sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen)
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 2:00 AM
Message-id: <671d8c26.02012...@posting.google.com>
play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1) wrote in message
news:<20020128212951...@mb-fi.aol.com>...
> Yes, Lainie, I know. And to hell with the kids, right??? Having a biobaby
is
> a right no matter if you are a murderer, molester or plain old abuser. I'm
not
> suggesting lowering the standards for adoptive parents. I'm suggesting
raising
> the standards of bioparents.
And how do you intend to do that, Roy?
Lainie
Raising awareness is always the beginning of doing...
>>
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <3C56343C...@pacific.net.sg>
Marley Greiner wrote:
> "PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote
> > WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
> > don't they deserve the same protection?
>
> Because adoptive parents are rearing somebody else's children. Paps are
> vetted through a system that makes sure the kids aren't being placed with
> crackheads, incompents, crazy people, and pedophiles
So why is it okay for kids to be born to crackheads, incompents, crazy people,
and pedophiles???? Why are these kids less important???
Do know anything
> about the international trafficking in children for prostitution? For
> sweatshops? Do you think any pervert, any pimp, and any cadet, sweat shop
> operator, any scam artist should be able to adopt kids to turn them out?
No more than any bioparent should be allowed to subject their child to any
pervert, any pimp, and any cadet, sweat shop operator or scam artist
> Adoption is not a cure for infertility, it is not a reproductive right.
No child should be the possession of a parent as a right, if the parent is like
you describe above. Adoption has nothing to do with it. Using adoption to
persecute good parents and using the above as an excuse is simply morally
wrong. Especially when the vast majority of adoptive parents are not like
that.
Society is built on the right and duty of parents to raise the children they
produce.
So its okay with you to have parents who are perverts, pimps, scam artists so
long as they are biological parents.
A few societies tried modifications to this -- such as the kibbutz --
but generally speaking, it didn't work. Western societies do limit this right
in
cases where the parents are perceived as abusive or neglectful.
In the USA a bioparent has to practically murder their child before it can be
taken away. Cases in point: A mother uses the trunkof her car as daycare.
She sentenced to a few months in jail, but ultimately is able to go back and
parent her kids... Susan Smith will be able to have more children after
getting out of prison for murdering her boys... A Christian minister proudly
speaks of beating his children with a belt and a cane on national tv and claims
its part of his religion, imagine if he was an aparent? Too bad he wasn't an
aparent, the kids would have been saved. And the stories go on and on... As
long as the children share blood, parents pretty much can do anything they want
to abuse their kids.
Stranger adoption for altruistic reasons
However you cut it, however much your adopted children are part of your family
-- and they are, I completely agree -- one cannot make adoption and birth
strictly parallel. IMO
Rupa
Just because we can't now, doesn't mean we shouldn't be at least looking in
that direction. Why should biokids suffer when their adoptive counterparts are
given such an advantage?
>>
rkbose
>
> From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
> Why? While it's true there are abusive parents among bios, and excellent
> parents
> among strangers, the fact is that when controls are poor, strangers mostly take
> children for nefarious purposes.
>
> What 'strangers' are you talking about? An adoptive parent is no more a
> stranger to his/her child than a bioparent.
They are, at the time of the adoption (assuming immediate adoption). The
bioparent has a shared genetic heritage with the child. While that's not
everything, it's not nothing either. There may even be a prior
relationship that is not biological: for instance, the son or daughter
of one's spouse, gotten before the marriage. But these relationships
make the person concerned less of a stranger to the child. I'd guess
that generally, in-family adoptions are scrutinized less than 'stranger'
adoptions. I use the word stranger to mean someone who is not of the
child's natal family.
You can hardly compare an aparent
> with a caretaker, nanny or babysitter.
I was thinking of something a lot more sinister than any of those.
Most aparents plan for years, want
> children most of their lives and lay out as much money as it costs to buy a car
> or a house. Certainly there are good and bad parents, bio and adoptive, but
> I'm talking about the majority.
But that's the result of the scrutiny. You have a group of people who
want to adopt, in the sense of raising a kid just to raise it. They do
have high standards, because they are being checked. If there were no
checks, then people with ulterior motives would flood into the applicant
pool. Historically, people have 'adopted' kids for a variety of
non-altruistic reasons: to get an additional worker; as a wife for a
son; as a sex object; as a companion/plaything for another child; as an
heir. (While some of these may be non-abusive, none is really about the
child.)
> All I'm saying is that there is all this
> hoopla about placing higher standards on aparents when its not needed and
> nobody says a thing about bioparents. Why is the focus on who can be
> controlled instead of what is best for the kids?
>
From a policy viewpoint, there's not much point in legislating things
that can't be controlled. People do say a thing about bio-parents,
though. They can't stop them having kids, but they can stop them raising
them. In most western countries, including the US, the parents cannot
just do whatever they want with the child. In a place like India, I
don't know if any laws prevent parents harming the child, but if they
do, they aren't enforced. A parent can do pretty much whatever they want
to their child short of murder. And many get away even with murder.
> Whereas with kids born to their raising
> parents, there is no way at present to apply that standard.
>
> And I doubt anyone would even if they could. But that's just my opinion.
I think western societies are heading in that direction. It's a matter
of raising the hurdle for the appropriate treatment of children.
Rupa
Roberta
Message-id: <20020130104047...@mb-cu.aol.com>
<snip>
Most aparents plan for years, want
children most of their lives and lay out as much money as it costs to buy a car
or a house.
>>
A HOUSE??? What country do you live in?
Roberta
mom to Juliette, 5.5, adopted 2/4/98 from China
Marley Greiner
"PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020130101754...@mb-cu.aol.com...
In that case, I guess there's just a lot of infertile women out there who
just haven't spread them enough. Your misogyny is showing.
Marley
>
>
>
Marley Greiner
> << Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
> From: lfor...@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)
> Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 10:01 AM
> Message-id: <a36o1r$7...@marlowe.umd.edu>
>
the
> aparents should be held to a higher standard. I believe the vast majority
of
> aparents plan and save and live to be parents. That alone puts them head
and
> shoulders above most other parents. In other words they ARE the higher
> standard already. As opposed to the bioparent with the accident in their
> belly.
Now there's a boring existence.
Marley
Roberta
Message-id: <20020130111550...@mb-cu.aol.com>
<< Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 9:33 PM
Message-id: <3C56343C...@pacific.net.sg>
Marley Greiner wrote:
> "PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote
> > WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
> > don't they deserve the same protection?
>
Marley (I think):
> Because adoptive parents are rearing somebody else's children. Paps are
> vetted through a system that makes sure the kids aren't being placed with
> crackheads, incompents, crazy people, and pedophiles
Playroy:
So why is it okay for kids to be born to crackheads, incompents, crazy people,
and pedophiles???? Why are these kids less important???
Marley (I think):
Do know anything
> about the international trafficking in children for prostitution? For
> sweatshops? Do you think any pervert, any pimp, and any cadet, sweat shop
> operator, any scam artist should be able to adopt kids to turn them out?
Playroy (I think):
No more than any bioparent should be allowed to subject their child to any
pervert, any pimp, and any cadet, sweat shop operator or scam artist
Marley (I think):
> Adoption is not a cure for infertility, it is not a reproductive right.
Playroy (I think):
No child should be the possession of a parent as a right, if the parent is like
you describe above. Adoption has nothing to do with it. Using adoption to
persecute good parents and using the above as an excuse is simply morally
wrong. Especially when the vast majority of adoptive parents are not like
that.
>>
Roberta:
The vast majority of nonadoptive parents are not like that either.
Linda Fortney
PLAYROY1 <play...@aol.com> wrote:
>Sorry, I totally disagree. I am the only daddy to my kids. I happen to
This notion flies in the face of all reason. I tend to weigh nuture more
heavily in the nature nurture debate. But, the most cursory examination
of even the popularized literature indicates that genes have a profound
effect on our bodies and personalities. Lying to yourself about this
reality will only harm your kids.
>
>Forming a family through adoption is different than having
>bio-kids.
>
>As different as a cesarian is from natural childbirth.
You really are deluded. Genes express themselves.
>I don't get your reasoning. Just because there is a 'choice'? you think the
>aparents should be held to a higher standard. I believe the vast majority of
>aparents plan and save and live to be parents. That alone puts them head and
>shoulders above most other parents. In other words they ARE the higher
>standard already. As opposed to the bioparent with the accident in their
>belly.
Boy, you certainly are full of contempt for those who are fortunate enough
to bear children. I shudder to think what kind of a police state you and
Sue Tretter would set up to license parents.
Linda
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
Julia
It is unequal, IMO, because adoptive parents are the beneficiaries of
the adoption and we are the ones with most choice in the matter. The
birth parents are usually in crisis, and the child is normally
afforded no choice at all. Adoptive parents are in a privileged
position in relation to other triad members.
What you see as prejudice, I see as necessary and reasonable. If I
were handing my children over to become the child of a stranger, you
can be certain I would want them held to the highest standard
available.
Julia
Dian
Di
>
> >>
GR
(PLAYROY1) writes:
Marla:
>Call the waaambulance Roy. You can't hand out babies to everybody who thinks
they deserve them. If you didn't want to jump through hoops, you should have
grown your own.
>
>Why not? Anyone who spreads their legs can have one.
Mmm... interesting. But... er... sweetie, one presumes that
your wife spread hers with you (bad visual), and yet she's
never had a baby - not even once! What can this mean??
G(you're a yardbitch for good reason)R
GR
<steven...@spammers.are.awful.com> writes:
GR:
>> She cut a deal, you witless bitch. Something which (get this!)
>> happens every day all across this great land. The charge of
>> sexual abuse existed.
>
>
>So how solid was the evidence?
Murky, as was the reliability of the complaining kid.
I'm not saying that the DA would have proven the
charges at trial, but they were leverage and used as
a bargaining chip in the plea by both sides. DA says
plea it out or we'll continue the sexual investigation. PP
says I'll plea it out if you drop the sexual investigation.
Personally, I doubt that Poundstone molested any kid,
but she's not what I'd call good parenting material and
someone should have caught on to that long before this
sordid mess ever happened.
>I would have thought that the DA would
>just love to nail her to the wall as an example,
Eh. Not necessarily. Celebrities, as we all know,
recieve a different justice.
>unless either the evidence was iffy,
It was. Ultimately useful in the plea, but iffy.
>or the DA had plans to move up Ho'wood style.
Bingo! A kewpie doll is yours. It's not that PP has
any particular clout in the industry, but she has friends
and those friends have influence. Despite the obvious
wheeling and dealing, imo the resolution of the case,
thus far, is pretty fair. We'll see what happens with the
kids in the future.
GR
Steve White
lfor...@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
> Boy, you certainly are full of contempt for those who are fortunate enough
> to bear children. I shudder to think what kind of a police state you and
> Sue Tretter would set up to license parents.
And remember, Marnie would be the low commissioner on the
mothers-for-justice tribunal.
steve
J.
(Roberta) writes:
><< Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
>From: play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1)
>Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2002 10:40 AM
>Message-id: <20020130104047...@mb-cu.aol.com>
>
><snip>
>
>Most aparents plan for years, want
>children most of their lives and lay out as much money as it costs to buy a
>car
>or a house.
> >>
>
>
>A HOUSE??? What country do you live in?
There are some pretty low-priced homes in some areas of the US, Roberta. Less
than 10 years ago, my m-i-l sold a house in the rural midwest for under $10k.
It wasn't the worst in town, either. You probably still can pick one up there
for under $25k. Of course, you won't find work within 30 miles.
J.
>Roberta
>mom to Juliette, 5.5, adopted 2/4/98 from China
Reply to jmhjmdATaolDOTcom
J.
<steven...@spammers.are.awful.com> writes:
There is the off chance that the prosecutor didn't want to put the kids on the
stand or ruin their lives with a show.
J.
>
>
>
>steve
>
Reply to jmhjmdATaolDOTcom
J.
reneekar...@aol.com (ReneeKarynRacine) writes:
>>Odd interpretation of my opinion. No, I just believe that there are a
>>variety
>>of ways a family comes together. One way is childbirth and another way is
>>adoption. I don't put a lot of value on biological functions when they are
>>compared with REAL relationships.
>
>Blah Blah Blah Blah,
>
>Roy, as usual your words have as much meaning to me as those of Charlie
>Browns
>teacher.
>
>What would you know about a real relationship? It's bad enough that any SW
>judged you fit to be a parent. We can only hope that in your case, NATURE is
>truly stronger than NURTURE. And, we can only thank some kids lucky stars
>that
>no biology of yours ever produced them.
One of the failings of the current system is that it looks for reasons to
disqualify applicants rather than to qualify them for adoption. If no objective
red flags exist, the application pretty much has to be approved. Or so it seems
to me.
J.
Reply to jmhjmdATaolDOTcom
J.
(PLAYROY1) writes:
><< Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
>From: "Jack Bernhard" jcber...@prodigy.net
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 10:43 AM
>Message-id: <wTX48.15102$Al1.209...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
>"PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> blabbered in message
>news:20020127114203...@mb-md.aol.com...
>
>
>> Apparently Paula is allowed to keep her adopted children and her foster
>> children, but was convicted of child abuse (not sexual abuse) and driving
>under
>> the influence which she pleaded guilty to. However, she is never allowed
>to
>> adopt again. Imagine the uproar if a biological mother had committed the
>same
>> crimes and was told she has to tie her tubes? And yet there are some that
>deny
>> prejudice against adoptive parents.
>
>
>Are you being deliberately argumentative?
>
>No.
>
>You don't see the obvious
>difference here?
>
>NO.
>
> I strongly believe that adoptive parents need to be held
>to a higher standard than natural parents.
>
>WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
>don't they deserve the same protection?
They do. In case it's escaped your notice, adoption is not a right. We
regulate who can adopt because we can; we generally don't regulate who can
procreate because we can't, effectively. That hasn't stopped some courts
(Wisconsin's come to mind) from trying.
<snip>
>Regardless, adopting is not a right or a natural function.
>
>Yes it is. At least morally it is.
>
>It is, instead a
>privilege that should be granted to those who meet the highest standards.
>
>Parenting is a moral right
What does that mean, that by virtue of my existence I have a right to parent?
> and ALL parents should have to meet the highest
>standards, not just those who have chosen to be parents. Why should the
>biomom
>who (as you say) plops one out after a one night stand and who will more than
>likely want to give the child away, be held to a lower standard than paps who
>plan and possibly give up their life savings to make a dream come true?
>In doing so, they (adoptive parents) should be held to those standards, or
>lose
>the privilege
>altogether. They are, after all, raising someone else's kid.
>
>No, they are raising their own kids, Jackass.
We were given the opportunity to raise other people's children because the
children's original parents couldn't or wouldn't and were relieved of their
parental rights voluntarily or otherwise. Are children whose parents divorce
and who are then adopted by a step-parent any less the child of the parent who
created them? Does an orphan who is adopted become less the child of the
parents who die? I think not.
Try looking at it from the child's perspective for a moment.
>You would make a very good usa
>judge with your neanderthal blood is everything ideas. Fortunately there are
>others out there who think that family and real relationships are a tad more
>important than sharing DNA.
Jack can speak for himself, but I would have counted him among them.
>Jack
J.
Reply to jmhjmdATaolDOTcom
Roberta
From: jmd...@aol.com (J.)
Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2002 11:07 PM
Message-id: <20020130230704...@mb-mo.aol.com>
In article <20020130114835...@mb-fb.aol.com>, ro...@aol.comnojunk
(Roberta) writes:
><< Subject: Re: PaulaPoundstoneVS-BioMoms
>From: play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1)
>Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2002 10:40 AM
>Message-id: <20020130104047...@mb-cu.aol.com>
>
><snip>
>
>Most aparents plan for years, want
>children most of their lives and lay out as much money as it costs to buy a
>car
>or a house.
> >>
>
>
>A HOUSE??? What country do you live in?
There are some pretty low-priced homes in some areas of the US, Roberta. Less
than 10 years ago, my m-i-l sold a house in the rural midwest for under $10k.
It wasn't the worst in town, either. You probably still can pick one up there
for under $25k. Of course, you won't find work within 30 miles.
J.
>>
Yeah, but do you think the owner of a $25k house will be approved to do a $25k
adoption?
Roberta
mom to Juliette, almost 6, adopted 2/4/98 from China
J.
(Roberta) writes:
Somewhere, sometime, yes. There are many who live well below what they can
afford.
The more likely answer, though, is that those who live in $25k homes will be
looking at subsidized adoptions. (I know that a $25k home is almost impossible
to imagine in your part of the world.)
J.
>Roberta
>mom to Juliette, almost 6, adopted 2/4/98 from China
>
Reply to jmhjmdATaolDOTcom
Roberta
Message-id: <20020130235219...@mb-mt.aol.com>
J.
Reply to jmhjmdATaolDOTcom
>>
J,
I realize that there are $25k homes in this country, just not many of them,
and certainly not many middle-class homes.
Actually, houses in some lovely neighborhoods of boroughs of NYC were quite a
bargain until about 5 years ago. And real estate taxes on private and 2-family
houses are quite low in comparison to the surrounding suburbs. I am sitting in
a home (condo) that I could sell for a considerable multiple of what I bought
it for in 1989--but where would we go? The eternal real estate question.
ReneeKarynRacine
> > WHy? Are adoptive children some how more valuable than bio-children? Why
> > don't they deserve the same protection?
Roy,
As usual logic and reason escape your last living brain cell (probably too
much credit)...
Most people do not reproduce for the express purpose of abusing or neglecting
their offspring. If someone were looking for a child to abuse (sexually,
emotionally or physically), or to use for child pornography or slavery, etc. do
you think they would either get pregnant (woman) or get someone pregnant (man)?
No, they would attempt to kidnap or adopt it. Therefore, there are safeguards
in place to make sure that this does not happen.
When the system screens PAPs, and not potential biological parents, they do not
treat adoptive parents unfairly. For the privilege of raising someone else's
child, you should be held to the HIGHEST of standards. The only ones who
suffer here are the children. Your children, for having to grow up with you as
their (Heaven forbid) father, and children of bad parents in general.
PLAYROY1
No child should be the possession of a parent as a right, if the parent is like
you describe above. Adoption has nothing to do with it. Using adoption to
persecute good parents and using the above as an excuse is simply morally
wrong. Especially when the vast majority of adoptive parents are not like
that.
>>
Roberta:
The vast majority of nonadoptive parents are not like that either.
True, but if you take the percentage of adoptive parents vs the percentage of
bioparents who abuse, I'm betting there are more bioparents who would be
guilty. Simply because adopted families are planned and wanted. The intention
from the beginning is to do good. There are no accidental adoptions.
Biofamilies are the luck of the draw and therefore a much more likely breeding
ground for abuse. I may be wrong, but the logic seems right.
Jack Bernhard
Well, without any statistics to back up that claim, you're just shoveling
horseshit. I've heard of plenty of abused adoptees. Just 'cause somebody
wants a kid and drops some coin, doesn't mean they're gonna be superior
parenting material. Your logic is flawed.
Eldie
> << Playroy :
> No child should be the possession of a parent as a right, if the parent is
like
> you describe above. Adoption has nothing to do with it. Using adoption
to
> persecute good parents and using the above as an excuse is simply morally
> wrong. Especially when the vast majority of adoptive parents are not like
> that.
> >>
>
>
>
> Roberta:
> The vast majority of nonadoptive parents are not like that either.
>
percentage
of
> bioparents who abuse, I'm betting there are more bioparents who would be
> guilty. Simply because adopted families are planned and wanted. The
intention
> from the beginning is to do good. There are no accidental adoptions.
> Biofamilies are the luck of the draw and therefore a much more likely
breeding
> ground for abuse. I may be wrong, but the logic seems right.>>
Jack: <<Well, without any statistics to back up that claim, you're just
shoveling
horseshit. I've heard of plenty of abused adoptees. Just 'cause somebody
wants a kid and drops some coin, doesn't mean they're gonna be superior
parenting material. Your logic is flawed.>>
His logic? Jack, Jack Jack. Roy does not have a single logic gene in his body.
eldie
rkbose
>
> Roberta:
> The vast majority of nonadoptive parents are not like that either.
>
> True, but if you take the percentage of adoptive parents vs the percentage of
> bioparents who abuse, I'm betting there are more bioparents who would be
> guilty. Simply because adopted families are planned and wanted. The intention
> from the beginning is to do good. There are no accidental adoptions.
> Biofamilies are the luck of the draw and therefore a much more likely breeding
> ground for abuse. I may be wrong, but the logic seems right.
I see what you're saying: That at least adopted children are wanted,
which is a first step. It makes sense that 'unwanted' children are at
greater risk for abuse. Offsetting that, though, is the probability that
the vast majority of people do not abuse children. If abuse is
considered to be unusual and pathological behaviour, then it can occur
in any family, whether birth or adoptive. Anecdotal evidence suggests
that some adoptees are abused.
I also suspect (and that's suspect, as in wildly guess) that children
are at greater risk for abuse when their original families are disrupted
and their mothers end up with boy-friends/ husbands who don't like them
very much. If we knew that adoptive families were more stable than other
families, it might be a point in favor.
I don't know if anyone has collected stats. The only thing I recall as
being based on some data implied that the risk of abuse was about the
same in a bio-home as an adoptive one. Which would suggest that being
unplanned is not a risk factor, and even being unwanted may not be a
major risk factor.
Anyone seen any studies about likely factors in abuse?
Rupa
Jack Bernhard
"Eldie" <el...@aol.comcomcom> wrote in message
news:20020131172549...@mb-da.aol.com...
LOL, I know <hanging head shamefully> We must also remember that Roy
doesn't put much stock in genes anyway, so even if he had one he is unlikely
to use it.
Jack
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <S9i68.62028$mp5.319...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
That's a big 'JUST'. The hoops one has to go through to be an adoptive parent
would make it illogical to me to then turn around aand abuse a child. However
if the child was unwanted to begin with, or a surprise one has to adjust to, it
makes sense. I'm sure there are abused adopted kids too, I'm just saying the
odds of getting abused by a bio parent based on the over-all intentions of the
pps seem to be more in favor of bio parents being guilty.
>>
PLAYROY1
being based on some data implied that the risk of abuse was about the
same in a bio-home as an adoptive one. Which would suggest that being
unplanned is not a risk factor, and even being unwanted may not be a
major risk factor.
Anyone seen any studies about likely factors in abuse?
Rupa
I didn't know that, Rupa, but glad to hear that the stats on abuse may be the
same in bio vs adopted. But that brings me back to the original point. The
point was that adoptive parents are unfairly singled out for scrutiny over
bioparents. If the stats on abuse are the same, then why are adoptive parents
discriminated against?
>>
PLAYROY1
From: ju...@NOSPAM.dingoblue.net.au (Julia)
Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2002 1:58 PM
Message-id: <3c586a61...@news.dingoblue.net.au>
On 30 Jan 2002 15:54:34 GMT, play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1) wrote:
><< And I for one have no problem with adoptive parents being held to a
>higher standard. It is unequal, but by its very nature adoption is
>unequal.
>
>Julia
> >>
>Its unequal because of the prejudice.
It is unequal, IMO, because adoptive parents are the beneficiaries of
the adoption and we are the ones with most choice in the matter.
The Adoptive parents are the ONLY beneficiaries of adoption????? So you don't
believe the biomom is benefitting from the peace of mind that her biochild has
a loving forever home? The child is not benefitting from getting a loving
forever home?
The
birth parents are usually in crisis, and the child is normally
afforded no choice at all. Adoptive parents are in a privileged
position in relation to other triad members.
In international adoption I agree. But in domestic, hardly. A child is never
afforded a choice. Hence the old expression, 'you can pick your friends, but
you can't pick your relatives'. And yes, the biofamily is in crisis and who do
you think is helping them out of this crisis???? The adoptive parents are the
ones giving her peace of mind. IF, we have the most choice its because we're
the only responsible ones in the situation able to DO anything to make it
right.
What you see as prejudice, I see as necessary and reasonable. If I
were handing my children over to become the child of a stranger, you
can be certain I would want them held to the highest standard
available.
Julia
Again, I'm not suggesting lowering the standards for paps, i'm suggesting
evening the scrutiny. I happen to think biokids deserve the same protection as
adopted kids.
>>
Jack Bernhard
it. Adoptive parents aren't superior just because of pre-planning.
Everybody has to adjust to a new kid in the house, whether adopted or not.
There is. AFAIK, no statistics to back up your theory.
If we're tossing around half-baked theories, we might as well include the
obvious rebuttal. That is; that due to the fact that the a/pars are not
biologically related to the child, there is a higher liklihood of abuse
because there was no in utero bonding between mother and child and that the
father is not naturally propagating his line. It's the red-headed
step-child theory.
Personally, I don't buy into either theory. There's crappy parenting
material all around. I believe that if a study was done, one would find
that incidents of abuse (percentage) would probably be about the same.
Jack
PLAYROY1
Message-id: <3C581FD0...@pacific.net.sg>
PLAYROY1 wrote:
>
> From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
> Why? While it's true there are abusive parents among bios, and excellent
> parents
> among strangers, the fact is that when controls are poor, strangers mostly
take
> children for nefarious purposes.
>
> What 'strangers' are you talking about? An adoptive parent is no more a
> stranger to his/her child than a bioparent.
They are, at the time of the adoption (assuming immediate adoption). The
bioparent has a shared genetic heritage with the child.
I guess if you are one of those who puts stock in genes = relationship. I
don't.
While that's not
everything, it's not nothing either.
In your opinion. I happen to think it is nothing without adding a
relationship.
You can hardly compare an aparent
> with a caretaker, nanny or babysitter.
I was thinking of something a lot more sinister than any of those.
Most aparents plan for years, want
> children most of their lives and lay out as much money as it costs to buy a
car
> or a house. Certainly there are good and bad parents, bio and adoptive, but
> I'm talking about the majority.
But that's the result of the scrutiny. You have a group of people who
want to adopt, in the sense of raising a kid just to raise it. They do
have high standards, because they are being checked. If there were no
checks, then people with ulterior motives would flood into the applicant
pool. Historically, people have 'adopted' kids for a variety of
non-altruistic reasons: to get an additional worker; as a wife for a
son; as a sex object; as a companion/plaything for another child; as an
heir. (While some of these may be non-abusive, none is really about the
child.)
> All I'm saying is that there is all this
> hoopla about placing higher standards on aparents when its not needed and
> nobody says a thing about bioparents. Why is the focus on who can be
> controlled instead of what is best for the kids?
>
From a policy viewpoint, there's not much point in legislating things
that can't be controlled. People do say a thing about bio-parents,
though. They can't stop them having kids, but they can stop them raising
them. In most western countries, including the US, the parents cannot
just do whatever they want with the child. In a place like India, I
don't know if any laws prevent parents harming the child, but if they
do, they aren't enforced. A parent can do pretty much whatever they want
to their child short of murder. And many get away even with murder.
That seems to be true in America too.
> Whereas with kids born to their raising
> parents, there is no way at present to apply that standard.
>
> And I doubt anyone would even if they could. But that's just my opinion.
I think western societies are heading in that direction. It's a matter
of raising the hurdle for the appropriate treatment of children.
Rupa
>>