I'm a straight-up libertarian: I don't care who you love/sleep with, what you spend your money on, what kind of drugs you do, or whatever, as long as nobody (unconsenting) gets hurt. I'm pro-choice. Now here's where I get a divide by zero error:

I have a friend who is a foster parent. They have kept a special needs child for over a year, and he was just placed back with his father. The birth mother had four children before, and lost them all to the foster system. She was allowed to live with this baby (#5) at the father's house, but was not allowed to be unsupervised with the baby; they broke up, and now the baby is living alone with his father. The father cannot afford him, and my friend has been helping by taking care of the baby some and buying food and such. The kicker? #6 is on the way, and the same father is the father-to-be (not so with #1-4). It's already been established that this child will be taken away from her, or placed with its father. As if that is not frustrating enough, she has not and will not receive prenatal care (same with #1-5). She smokes, drinks coffee and diet coke, and hardly eats. She feels that her maternal instinct is better than what any doctors can tell her.

Where do we draw the line at a person's rights? Especially when so much of the advice out there isn't set in stone. When I was pregnant, I had a glass of wine with dinner every now and then, and had 1 or 2 cups of tea every day. Some people think that's irresponsible, and I'd hate to get arrested for something like that. Is there ever a time that someone could be forced to get prenatal care, follow "the rules" like not smoking, or get sterilized? It's not fair to the kids, and it's not fair to society. It's just disgusting.

__________________

I'm close, but not quite to the point of accepting political mandatory sterilization. A family court judge should have the right to order her to stop bearing children she has no means of supporting.

Those poor kids.

Hmmmmm, here in India, such women go on having kids. They are not necessarily drinking or anything, but they can hardly feed themselves but still have no qualms about having dozens of kids.
What terrible life ahead for such kids. We do not even have a foster system, so they go on living with their parents in misery with no possible hope of having a better life or even basic education!!! So they eventually resort to begging or stealing. Unfortunately with such huge population and limited resources, human life does not have the same value as it does in western countries.

There are a ot of people and organisations that are involved in taking care of such children, but they do not have enough resources.

God forbid if anyone even suggests mandatory sterilisation!!! It will be turned into a burning political issue. Maybe, given the scenario nowadays, some might even riot over it.

__________________
***Pournima***

Everyone already knows how I feel about this one.

People shouldn't plan to have more children than they can afford. Period. I'm also for mandatory sterilization/ BC depending on the situation.

It's dangerous. Legislating reproductive freedom would set a dangerous precedent.
Once you start restricting the reproductive rights of a small group of people, it doesn't stop there. Who will be next?

Oh I know!!! Let's start with the Lesbos. Most of the country doesn't want them to be able to raise children anyway.

Reproductive freedom is a right, not a privilege (e.g., driver's license) granted by the state. I think that if you enjoy your rights and freedoms, then you need to support the same rights and freedoms for everyone else as well, even the irresponsible. That's the price we pay for living in a free society.

__________________

Rox, I agree with everything you said. I can't stand the thought of the state governing such personal rights. BUT, what about the rights of the kid? Now this goes back to my being pro-choice, because I wouldn't want to open that can of worms, but I think that if the fetus is intended to come to fruition, it *is* a person. I know that sounds kind of wafflish, but that's the best way I can describe what I think. But if the state got involved, it could get all Handmaid's Tale and $hit.

As for the gays wanting babies, that makes this situation even more shameful. There are plenty of loving would-be parents out there that can't have babies for one reason or another, while other women who could care less spew them out left and right. Meanwhile, the babies aren't adoptable b/c the mother won't release them.

__________________

I really hate that the situation you described happens and happens often. Even though I have a lot of wishes that it would be a good thing to inflict mandatory sterilization, I just can't support it. At all. Reproduction and making decisions about your body is not the government's business at all. I will never support it. I don't have to like what people are doing with their choices and I even despise it to a degree, but I still believe in their rights to make horrible choices. It's so difficult though because there is a child who is caught up in the middle of it.

__________________

Reproductive freedom might be a right, but adopting is a privilege. I'm all for reproductive freedom, but it's rather ironic that the parents who abuse their children, either prenatally or postnatally, can just continue to have kids, while those of us who can't have biological children jump through all sorts of hoops to adopt the kids of people like this.

As for your "lesbo" comment, I was accosted by a man on the street today while taking my son to his one year-old well-baby check-up. He was yelling at us that "you're-sick-evil-lesbians-and-oh-my-god-it's-worse-they-have-a-baby-too." Yeah, that was pleasant. There are a ton of people out there who consider us to be unfit parents because we're lesbians. ITA agree with your comment on where does it end once you start to take reproductive freedoms away from some people. I have a 19 year-old stepson who is a wonderful guy and has made his University's Dean's list every term (he's a Senior--got into an Honors early entry program). I'd challenge anyone to take a look at him and then tell us we're unfit parents just because we're lesbians.

__________________
Karen
DP Nancy
DS Jacob, born 2/20/05
DSS, 19
TTC 3+ years
Adopted Jacob after 4mcs, 2 operations, and more clomid, injectables, and IUIs than I care to remember
6/14/04--First meeting with agency
2/21/05--matched with Jacob, born 2/20/05
2/24/05--Gotcha Day!
3/7/06--Finalization of Jacob's adoption

Jacob loves his "at." The feeling is mutual.


My very short blog

I agree. And generally it's reserved for the wealthier individuals. I would love to adopt another child, toddler aged, but we don't have the cash to do it. And it makes me sad that there are probably all sorts of children out there who would be able to find nice homes if they weren't such a commodity.


True. There wouldn't be kids available for adoption if it wasn't for the irresponsible.



It makes me sad that we live in one of the most educated countries in the world and yet we still have so much ignorance- and/or religious-driven hate here. I'm sorry you had to listen to that man's hate-filled drivel.

__________________

Karen, I'm sorry you have to deal with this kind of stuff. That man probably has a dozen little bigots at home, following right in his footsteps.

__________________

Ugh! Karen that is awful. Thank goodness at this age Jacob has no idea what he was saying.

I understand your frustration with the system. The state however, is in a precarious situation. If the state takes kids from people just because they are poor, where does it end? How high of an income do you need to be able to have children? I am thinking about the father in the op. The mother is not a fit parent, but the state has determined the father to be fit, he is just poor. That brings me to another point. The father in this case bears responsibility too. He has had two children with a woman he knows is not a fit parent. That irritates me more than this irresponsible woman getting pregnant, because this man knew she was unfit before he even had the first child with her.

Anyway, back to the state, so, the state can't regulate reproductive freedom because as we all agree it could indeed be a slipery slope. So, the next best thing is to take the children of abusive and neglectful parents. The parents must be given the opportunity to turn things around. Especially those charged with neglect. In my expirience with the homeless I found that many times neglect was simply ignorance on the part of the parents, they simply did not know any better. Now, former President Clinton signed into law that the children of non-compliant parents will have their rights terminated after 18 months in the system. This way children will not languish in the limbo of having a parent who refuses to do what is required by the state yet also refuses to give up her rights. The state then generally tries to place the children with a fit and willing family member. We all agree that children should not be separated from family if at all possible in most cases. After that the children can go into the adoptive process.

Once the state begins to adopt out these children it is their responsibility to make sure these children are in as safe and loving an environment as possible. We have all heard if cases where adoptive children have been neglected or abused, the system is not fool-proof but I would imagine that if the adoptive process were less stringent there would be far more cases of abuse by adopotive parents than there are now and the state would be villified for not protecting the children it was supposed to care for.

Bridget, you should look into becoming a foster parent if you really think you are interested in adopting a toddler. This is an easier way to adopt financially speaking although it can be more emotionally taxing because the child placed with you might not be up for adoption.

__________________
Asexuality: It's not just for amoebas anymore

"As long as two people love each other I don't think God cares whether they both have a hoo hoo or a haa haa" Marge Simpson

That's precisely why I haven't gone the Foster parent route, G. I don't think I would handle it very well if I had to let a child go after taking care of him/her for a while. I'm way too emotional for that. However, IS it possible to adopt a child you've been fostering? I didn't think that was the case.

__________________

I feel this way too. It's so sad to think of those poor kids.

I think this is just ridiculous in this day in age people still act like that. My ex husband was raised by lesbians and they were always so afraid that someone would try to get him taken away. His "real" parents were serious druggies and the least stable people you could imagine. I can't imagine what would have happened to him, had he not had those two loving mothers to take care of him.

Can I ask a question about foster parenting (because it's something I've thought about doing in the future)-- do they let couples with 2 working parents be foster parents? If not, should they? Maybe I should start a new thread.

As for the original topic, I'll let Rox speak for me. I completely agree with her.

__________________
Linda
Mom to Katie (22), Amber (20), Sarah (9), Jadyn (3), and Raena (1)



Click HERE to see my SBB Digital Scrapbooking Gallery!

Bridget, yes you can adopt a child you've been fostering and many foster children find their forever families this way. If you let the SS workers know you are interested in adoption through fostering they will only give you children ready for adoption or who are likely to become adoptable.

Linda It may depend on the state but in Illinois working parents and single parents can foster. I'm not sure about single men, but I do know single women foster as well as married couples that both work.

__________________
Asexuality: It's not just for amoebas anymore

"As long as two people love each other I don't think God cares whether they both have a hoo hoo or a haa haa" Marge Simpson

Thanks, Geela! I plan to discuss this with DH tonight. We both really want another child, but I am just not up for another pregnancy or worse, delivery.

And although I absolutely loved DS as a baby, I'm not really into that stage. I think DH and I would really like to find a child or two around 3+ years old.

__________________

There are different types of foster parents and you can go into fostering with the intention of adopting--it's called "foster-to-adopt." It still carries the risk that you may not be able to keep the child forever, but it's absolutely the least expensive way to adopt. It can even be free if you adopt a special needs child. Some special needs kids are classified that way only because they are older and not caucasian.

The agency that I adopted through, WACAP (wacap.org) has a US Kids Program that helps to identify older kids in the foster system who are ready to be adopted. I know one family who adopted two kids (~5 and 6 years old) who were only in the foster care system for two weeks. A lot of kids who have been in the foster care system for more than a year end up having quite a few emotional problems, so it's important to read up on issues around foster care and early parental neglect/abuse/drug exposure (e.g., Attachment Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, etc). By adopting an infant, you can avoid many of the emotional disorders.

Here is a great web site for information about the different ways to adopt: http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/

There's an adoption board on this site in the TTC/Infertility section. You might go have a look at their sticky on adoption information.

__________________
Karen
DP Nancy
DS Jacob, born 2/20/05
DSS, 19
TTC 3+ years
Adopted Jacob after 4mcs, 2 operations, and more clomid, injectables, and IUIs than I care to remember
6/14/04--First meeting with agency
2/21/05--matched with Jacob, born 2/20/05
2/24/05--Gotcha Day!
3/7/06--Finalization of Jacob's adoption

Jacob loves his "at." The feeling is mutual.


My very short blog

That's probably the main issue I have with adopting an older child. If it was just me and DH, it would be easier, but we have another son to consider.



I know, but I keep thinking of all those poor children no one wants because they're not babies.



Thank you!

__________________

I felt the same way since my stepson is in the house too. We considered adopting a 9 year-old girl, but she was "sexually reactive," which means that when she acts out she tends to do it in a sexual manner. We didn't want my teenage stepson to somehow get caught up in the middle of all that.

I agree that it's really hard to think about all the kids out there who don't have homes. One of the great things about adopting an older child is that you can know better if any prenatal drug abuse has affected them. You can also better assess if they will fit into your family well in terms of personality. If you do investigate adopting an older child, seek out a social worker who will be completely honest with you about what a child has gone through and how it has affected them. Going into it with your eyes fully open is the best way to help these children. I cried when I heard about all that the little 9 year-old girl that we considered had gone through (13 foster homes in 6 years), but ultimately decided that it would not be best for her or my family if we adopted her. To my immense relief, she did get adopted by another family.

__________________
Karen
DP Nancy
DS Jacob, born 2/20/05
DSS, 19
TTC 3+ years
Adopted Jacob after 4mcs, 2 operations, and more clomid, injectables, and IUIs than I care to remember
6/14/04--First meeting with agency
2/21/05--matched with Jacob, born 2/20/05
2/24/05--Gotcha Day!
3/7/06--Finalization of Jacob's adoption

Jacob loves his "at." The feeling is mutual.


My very short blog