User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 56 of 56

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    You don't even buy a car unless you are sure you can make the payments for the short foreseeable future. Wouldn't you make sure you have enough resources to raise a child?
    Acting without considering the consequences is far too common. If we don't condemn people for acting without due care, why should we do so in this case?

    While we're burning this family at the stake at it is, I wouldn't be surprised if the family suspected that the adoption agency wouldn't take the child back and found the fastest, sneakiest way around it.
    But they felt that the agency seriously misled them in order to get rid of a budding psychopath. They were simply reciprocating the agency's tactics.

    After I debated this with my friend (also an IXTJ) my response is - but he's a seven year old child??? And apparently he was malnourished when he arrived. I mean seriously, he is no physical threat.
    That's arguable. It doesn't take much to plunge a knife into someone as they slept. Even more so if the victim was a sibling.

    The fundamental issue is what adults and children owe each other.

  2. #52
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Acting without considering the consequences is far too common. If we don't condemn people for acting without due care, why should we do so in this case?
    Two wrongs don't make a right?

    But they felt that the agency seriously misled them in order to get rid of a budding psychopath. They were simply reciprocating the agency's tactics.
    I think that's questionable. "Budding psychopath" or understandably "disturbed child" or rather "troubled child in the midst of transition".

    I don't disagree that the agency may have purposely or else

    That's arguable. It doesn't take much to plunge a knife into someone as they slept. Even more so if the victim was a sibling.
    I don't understand why then they didn't lock him up in his room. Or take him to a counselor. Or his principal. Or their pastor. I guess the article is lacking in details in the steps the family took or what 3rd parties thought of the boy's behavior (for instance his school or a babysitter) but if all the family did was keep him at home until they couldn't stand him anymore, I have a tendency to not believe the extent of the actual merit of the family's fears.

    The fundamental issue is what adults and children owe each other.
    Hmm, actually I think the fundamental issues here are twofold.

    1) What does a parent owe their child
    2) What makes someone a parent to a child

    I think point 2 is the biggest source of contention when people disagree with in their POVs on the OP story.

    It's my belief that the minute the couple signed the papers agreeing to the adoption, they 100% became the legal, moral, and spiritual parents of that boy. That's why I said there are no "take-backsies".

    If the child had been their biological one, I firmly believe they would have not given up so quickly. They would have gone to great lengths to help the child. And done so willingly and gladly, and moreso, lovingly. Even if the child had been raised elsewhere since birth and only recently returned to the family. For no other reason that in the parents' minds "this is my biological child".

    I was really taken aback about how provincial so called 'enlightened' adoptive parents can be. I think there is such a big deal made in America about how modern and even morally superior we are as a society because adoption is so popular, particularly global and inter-ethnic adoption. Look how enlightened we, look how ego-less - a child doesn't have to look like us for us to love them.

    But then you see the reality of it, and as soon as things get hard some people just cut and run.

    In other cultures, adoption is rare or actively frowned upon because blood ties or so vitally important to the foundation of society and orphans are looked at suspiciously. But if someone is your own blood, that tie and that obligation on both ends of parent/child is tight as a vise.

    Biological Relation - that seems to me to be the only and deciding factor in this story, the guiding principle, everything else is just details and color.

    The child was not biologically theirs, so the family said "fuck this" and carted the kid off. I think a lot of people (who I hope to God never plan on adopting) agree with the parents in the story and state some of the reasons you stated.

    But really, the overriding single principle for agreeing with the family in the OP, is that supporters can not fathom feeling that parent bond with a child that is not of their DNA. Or perhaps with any child (since some don't want children, period)

    Basically they think of themselves in the parents shoes and they see the adoptive child as an OUTSIDER, a stranger, a threat to their "real" family.

    I truly believe this.

    I'm sure I sound horribly judgemental and rigid on this to some people, but that's what I got out the whole thing.
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    It's my belief that the minute the couple signed the papers agreeing to the adoption, they 100% became the legal, moral, and spiritual parents of that boy. That's why I said there are no "take-backsies".
    That's a personal preference. Like religious values, I say "To each their own", unless one side can prove that they have an objectively superior perspective that ought to be imposed universally.

    If the child had been their biological one, I firmly believe they would have not given up so quickly.
    If it was their own kid, there would not have been a third party who can be identified as being at least partially responsible for their predicament. For that reason, their behavior would likely be different.

    Is your outrage based on the fact that you believe these people value their own genetics more than other people's? Most parents are blatantly guilty of the same bias.

    Basically they think of themselves in the parents shoes and they see the adoptive child as an OUTSIDER, a stranger, a threat to their "real" family.
    It's more than that. I see no reason why anyone would expected to bond with an angry, uncontrollable kid who is threatening their family with death by fire.

    I don't think this is just a case of an injured soul who just need some extra TLC to thrive. The kid is so severely damaged that he will likely cause great harm to those he cross path with.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    I would understand the outrage if the woman's action was clearly motivated by a sense of entitlement for instant gratification with no regards to the harm done to others. Her seemingly impulsive actions create a very negative first impression.

    Would people still want to lynch her if instead of shipping the kid back without a proper RMA, she went through the proper channels? What moral principle would have been violated under this scenario?

    Keep in mind that the kid was making very credible threats to kill the family in their sleep.
    Agreed, much like I agree with Cafe's statements before. In my mind, so much of this has to do with maternal instinct and bonding. If this were her natural born child, she undoubtedly would have gone about things a different way, and I can't place the entirety of the blame on her. Was the child legally hers? Yes. But whatever the platitudes about "loving an adopted child as your own" say, I simply don't believe that's true. This woman adopted a child already partially developed, and not under her guidance, tutelage or love. And you simply cannot replicate that maternal love the minute the kid walks in the door. This is not a failing on her part, but simply a biological truth.

    I blame her to an extent, but I also blame the adoption agency. They're clearly just trying to pawn off problem children on unsuspecting families.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  5. #55
    Senior Member ObliviousExistence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    loco
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    178

    Default

    perhaps she should have adopted a boy from Africa instead, its the new trend. Several celebrities including Madonna, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have successfully adopted African babies. I recommend Ethiopian children, they are very easy going peace loving people the Ethiopians.

  6. #56
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    My former boss and her husband adopted a 4-year-old boy from Russia. After the adoption was complete, she and her husband learned from their U.S. pediatrician that the boy has cystic fibrosis. They kept him.

Similar Threads

  1. Back to the Future
    By Bolot in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 12:44 PM
  2. Trying to get back to losing
    By raz in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-09-2009, 11:10 AM
  3. [ISTJ] Sending Love and Peace to all the ISTJ's
    By hermeticdancer in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-23-2008, 08:12 PM
  4. A look back to a May Radio Episode
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 08:38 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 02:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO