Adoption and Government

[Burke]

I have a lawyer buddy who is always getting into adoption cases in which the govt is deciding whether or not people can adopt children. And, of course, there are govt agencies deeply involved in this.

But I have a simple question:

Why should govt be making such decisions? If someone wants to allow another to adopt his or her child, what right does the govt have to intervene?

My friend goes ballistic when I say this. If the govt were not involved, crack addicts, gays, etc. could be adopting. And all sorts of other bad things could be happening.

My reply is, so what? Any two crack addicts who are otherwise physically able can get together and produce babies right now anyway, without any govt involvement.

So, if the govt is going to be deciding who can and who cannot adopt, why shouldn't it be deciding who can and cannot have all babies?

Anyone here have an answer to this question?

[AnnArborGator]

There is no good answer, except that the government has decided that it can interject itself into the adoption market without arousing the widespread ire of the citizenry. The government always takes as much power as possible, so long as the people stand for it.

[gatorman_07732]

Should a convicted pedophile be able to adopt a child? I think not
I am not much for the gov but someone has to look out for the children who are being adopted

[Burke]

What is being done to keep convicted pedophiles from fathering children right now?

In an appropriate case, a convicted pedophile could be put on long-term probation and have as a condition of his probation that he not father, adopt, or be alone with children.
Here, he has been determined in a court of law to have violated the rights of others and is being punished for it.

[Dreamliner]

My sister is a social worker and I think she would attest that government is screwing more kids and breaking up more families than any private entity.

[Burke]

I've seen that many times. The kid rebels, the parent disciplines, the kid dials 911, the cops and social workers rush in and finish the destruction of the family entity.

It "takes a village," as Hillary puts it.

The "village" is really "the collective," and it's destroying the individuals involved.

[Burke]

The real point of this thread is to illustrate that once most get used to the govt doing something, not doing it becomes almost unthinkable.

Why, we couldn't risk allowing pedophiles to adopt children. The govt must be involved in this.

But the number of adopted children is almost infintesimally small compared with those with their natural parents.

So, why shouldn't govt be regulating who can and who can't have childen?

Blank out.

And one day the govt will be doing so.

Because most people have absolutely NO willingness to think for themselves, to rationally judge the mores of the society they live in.

That's why communists and radical Muslims, for example, have suffered so. And continue doing so. That's why ancient Egypt existed some 3000 years as a slave state.

But the United States of America was founded by men who think like this:

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Thomas Jefferson

[CitRain12]

The problem I have is people think that the govt is somehow the moral auhority on every issue, rather than the individual. There will always be moral and immoral people, just like killing regardless of method used. The govt moral record is far worse than that of the individual and thus should not be allowed to set any policy governing the morals or practices of other individuals or how that person governs their lives.

[AnnArborGator]

Originally Posted by CitRain12

The problem I have is people think that the govt is somehow the moral auhority on every issue, rather than the individual. There will always be moral and immoral people, just like killing regardless of method used. The govt moral record is far worse than that of the individual and thus should not be allowed to set any policy governing the morals or practices of other individuals or how that person governs their lives.

+1000

It's amazing to me how people can trust the government given government's horrible track record. The only thing government does well is employ the use of force toward destructive ends.

[gs_gator]

im not a big government fan but without some form of policing, adoption would become an unregulated business...one that, with human greed thrown in, would turn into human trafficking...

a better balance is certainly needed as many kids are screwed out of a better life by the very forces that wish to protect them...but to take a hands off approach as a society would result in equal or more profound suffering in some form...IMO

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by gs_gator

im not a big government fan but without some form of policing, adoption would become an unregulated business...one that, with human greed thrown in, would turn into human trafficking...

a better balance is certainly needed as many kids are screwed out of a better life by the very forces that wish to protect them...but to take a hands off approach as a society would result in equal or more profound suffering in some form...IMO

Bingo. Go back to no regulations and you are looking at America around the turn of the last century. Governments may be corrupt, but they are made up of corrupt people, and with no government intrusion, it's a different set of people robbing us. The answer is to meet somewhere in the middle. No argument we've gone too far in trusting government, but we've been down the laissez-faire road before too, and that only got us backlash and the start of the socialist movement. Has to be a balanced medium out there.

[Burke]

America, at the turn of the last century, was a hellu'va lot better place than the place we are going to now--hell.

In fact, it was probably the freest place ever. We are still living off the momentum of that predominantly free time.

Nevertheless, we have never "gone down the laissez faire road," not even close. Govt has always been screwing with businessmen, just not as much then as now.

The littany of capitalistic "horrors" leftists attribute to capitalism virtually always involve govt being involved in the economy and, as such, are just anti-captialistic myths.