3 ms·
> why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting? I don't understand this at all. People with a history of abuse or neglect ca
by mcphage 3y ago
> why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting?
I don't understand this at all. People with a history of abuse or neglect can have their own children—and often they do—but why on earth would you use that as an excuse to give them more children to abuse? Like, what is your thinking here?
- em-bee 3y agothat's not what i meant. if the abuse is so bad that their children will have to be taken away (even if only temporarily), then obviously if they have children again, and the abuse continues, those children will also be taken away. which means in practical terms, they can't really have children. what i did mean was: if whatever failures these parents have is mild enough that they are allowed to keep their children, because noone is perfect and the children are never in any danger then why should they not be allowed to adopt as well? in short, why should adoptive parents have to submit to higher standards? but, as someone else stated, there are not enough children up for adoption in the US anyways, so that argument becomes moot, because obviously you'll pick the most suitable parents first. and you do have a point. after rereading what i said: "most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways", this is really a claim that needs further scrutiny. it was supposed to imply that the tests are to harsh, but that is based only on anecdotal evidence so i am not really prepared to defend it. in hindsight, your reading of it makes sense too, so you are right to question it. thank you.