2 ms·

I think all the adoption regulation is completely bullshit, and likely against every nations constitution. Every one is allowed to have a baby. But, oh dear, i

by ralfn 14y ago

I think all the adoption regulation is completely bullshit, and likely against every nations constitution. Every one is allowed to have a baby. But, oh dear, if somebody wants to take care of a kid that has no parents. Personally, i dont think religious people are fit parents. Should i now campaign against religious people taking care of children? Or maybe, just maybe, people should just give the freedom to others they expect for themselves. I have no moral authority over any one, nor does any one have a moral authority over me. Why is it that fascism is allowed to flourish, as long as the fascists call it a religion. And how is that fair towards the 1% of religious folk that are actually religious? ( actually religious == using religion to guide your own lifechoices, instead of using it judge/oppress others and play god)

slurgfest 14y ago
The problem is that once the child is in the hands of the state, whatever happens to the child is the responsibility of the state. If the child suffers any problem which normally occurs, the state is now magically responsible. For example, if the child was adopted by an abusive alcoholic then this is a case of the terrible neglect and perfidy of the state... even though gobs of people are naturally born to abusive alcoholics and taking them away would usually be regarded as an instance of the terrible neglect and perfidy of the evil, bureaucratic state. The state must have a perfect track record in order to be merely tolerated. Otherwise, it will be overthrown. So by our own stupid irrationality, we ensure that the state is irrationally defensive. If the state could solve a problem 90%, but 10% are still left over, that 10% becomes the awful perfidy of the state, so we create an environment where the other 90% are completely ignored because at least it's "nobody's fault."

by ralfn 14y ago

slurgfest 14y ago

The problem is that once the child is in the hands of the state, whatever happens to the child is the responsibility of the state. If the child suffers any problem which normally occurs, the state is now magically responsible. For example, if the child was adopted by an abusive alcoholic then this is a case of the terrible neglect and perfidy of the state... even though gobs of people are naturally born to abusive alcoholics and taking them away would usually be regarded as an instance of the terrible neglect and perfidy of the evil, bureaucratic state. The state must have a perfect track record in order to be merely tolerated. Otherwise, it will be overthrown. So by our own stupid irrationality, we ensure that the state is irrationally defensive. If the state could solve a problem 90%, but 10% are still left over, that 10% becomes the awful perfidy of the state, so we create an environment where the other 90% are completely ignored because at least it's "nobody's fault."