^ This. Speaking from a purely economic view, I wonder if the officials who are making these laws realize how much keeping children in foster care costs the government every year.MinisterofDOOM wrote:The law is moronic.
MinisterofDOOM wrote:One loving parent is better than two negligent parents...or NO parents.
Honestly a bit more stupid to expect a law designed to cover a nation of over 300 million to do things on a case by case basis.Its stupid that the speed limit for a sports car driven by a trained racing driver on the street is the same as the speed limit for a 16 year old in a 10 seater van... But you need to have just one rule so it can be understood and enforced, and you have to aim for the safer side.MinisterofDOOM wrote:I think it's absolutely a case-by-case basis thing, and that a law that doesn't take that into account is stupid.
I don't expect a law designed to cover a nation of over 300 million to do things on a case by case basis.I expect the law not to get passed.Red coupe wrote:Honestly a bit more stupid to expect a law designed to cover a nation of over 300 million to do things on a case by case basis.
Why? Your comparing two completely different things.Solar_Runner wrote:The disparity of who can give birth to a child (think homeless/jobless crack junkie) and keep it until something dreadful happens AND who can adopt a child has always confused me…
Point I’m making is that there is absolutely no standard to being able to give birth (I am NOT suggesting that there should be either) however the standard to adopt and raise a child is overly restrictive.Red coupe wrote:Why? Your comparing two completely different things.
Whether or not a crack head has a kid is simply not their choice. They really couldn't stop it if they wanted to.
One thing is in their power to control, and the other isn't. I would be willing to bet if they were given the option they would tell crack heads and homeless not to reproduce...
This^elwesso wrote:There are probably a lot more single parent households that are eons better than dual parent households, regardless of if they adopted or not..
Child services can choose when a house is inadequate and they need to be taken away from their parents, so why cant they do the reverse...?
Of course, what would be nice and whats feasible are 2 entirely different things. But I would imagine that if you have apply to adopt a child, that you have to go through a pretty rigorous screening, why couldnt a single parent just do that?
Well, it doesn't take much labor to write a worthless and stupid law that simply says "no".nissangirl74 wrote:How is it that the government does not have the manpower to police the crack heads and deadbeats and their abuse of welfare, families first, and food stamps but they DO have the manpower to make sure single people can't get a shot at parenthood?
Doesn't take much to write a good law that says "Yes" either. Just more balls.Jesda wrote:Well, it doesn't take much labor to write a worthless and stupid law that simply says "no".
well there's the problem right there. these days, no one's got any.nissangirl74 wrote:Just more balls.
Lots of elections are coming up. It would be nice to see who can step up and make a change. Or at least set some freakin' limits.numbnuts240 wrote:
well there's the problem right there. these days, no one's got any.
aren't we learning that "change" isn't always a good thing?nissangirl74 wrote:It would be nice to see who can step up and make a change.
Not all change is bad, as long as it is with good intent and properly managed. Everyone deserves a chance to be happy.numbnuts240 wrote:
aren't we learning that "change" isn't always a good thing?
if **** couples and dyke couples can adopt, then single people should be able to, too. so long as there is adequate living conditions, income, and appropriate references, who cares? give the kid and single person a shot at a loving family.