What's wrong with adoption? sm
Posted By: m on 2009-03-06
In Reply to: No, this is I will NEVER understand. and who is - Jan
It would end the need for contact between the mother and father. You are making it sound like we are saying any woman who is raped MUST raise the child, and that is simply not true.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Abortion : adoption....s/m
What reasoning is it that the GOVERNMENT or CHURCH has the right to decide what happens to M Y embryo????
Up to the 5th month, later it is a crime.
I am absolutely AGAINST partial birth abortion, only if the life of the mother is in danger.
Checking adoption records
I agree. I think the media is way out of line with that. Judge Roberts and his wife should be commended and respected for having the love and compassion in their hearts to adopt these children.
The more I see of him, the more respect I have for him and the more I like him.
He lost his citizenship upon adoption by his
nm
abortion:adoption....for 99.6 percentile...sm
I would very much appreciate if you could give your opinion to this matter...
Thanks!
If you know who the father is - you need his permission for adoption also -
I don't think I would want to go to the man who raped me and say I want to give our child up, is that okay with you? I don't think when he says no, I will raise this child that I would want to turn over a child to that man to raise... and that is what would happen!
Would you want to take a child to prison to see his "daddy" for visitation because the court ordered it? Would you want to have to deal with him about child support?
I don't think so...
and just because the child was conceived in rape, believe me, as messed up as our court systems are, they would give that man visitation and the poor woman he had victimized would be victimized again and again and again!
Judge overturns Florida ban on adoption by gays
(CNN) -- A Florida circuit judge Tuesday struck down a 31-year-old state law that prevents gays and lesbians from adopting children, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two half-brothers he and his partner have raised as foster children since 2004.
"There is no question, the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing dependent children a permanent family through adoption," Judge Cindy S. Lederman wrote in her 53-page ruling.
"The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."
The state attorney general's office has appealed the decision.
Lederman said there is no moral or scientific reason for banning gays and lesbians from adopting, despite the state's arguments otherwise. The state argued that gays and lesbians have higher odds of suffering from depression, affective and anxiety disorders and substance abuse, and that their households are more unstable.
Lederman said the ban violated children's right to permanency provided under the Florida statute and under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Whether the ban violated the state's equal protection clause by singling out gays and lesbians should be considered, she said.
Lederman's ruling paves the way for Martin Gill to legally adopt the two half-brothers, ages 4 and 8, whom he has cared for since December 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union said.
The two boys, who are referred to as John and James Doe in court documents, were removed from their homes on allegations of abandonment and neglect.
On that December evening, John and James left a world of chronic neglect, emotional impoverishment and deprivation to enter a new world, foreign to them, that was nurturing, safe, structured and stimulating," Lederman wrote.
In 2006, the children's respective fathers' rights were terminated, court documents said, and they remained in the care of Gill and his partner.
"Our family just got a lot more to be thankful for this Thanksgiving," Gill said Tuesday, according to the ACLU, which represented him.
Florida is the only state that specifically bans all "homosexual" people from adopting children, although it does allow them to be foster parents.
This month, Arkansas voters approved a ballot measure to prohibit unmarried partners -- same-sex or opposite-sex couples -- from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure is similar to one in Utah, which excludes same-sex couples indirectly through a statute barring all unmarried couples from adopting or taking in foster children.
Mississippi allows single gays and lesbians to adopt, but prohibits same-sex couples from adopting.
Neal Skene, spokesman for the Florida Department of Children and Families, said the appeal was filed so a statewide resolution on the law could be determined by an appellate court. He noted that another Florida circuit judge declared the law unconstitutional this year but that ruling had not been appealed.
"We need a statewide determination by the appellate courts," he said.
Gill's adoption petition cannot be approved until the appeal process is finished, Skene said, but the children will remain in Gill's home.
"These are wonderful foster parents," Skene said. "It's just that we have a statute, [and] the statute is very clear on the issue of adoption."
Several organizations -- including the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- have said that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.
The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies adoption and foster care, hailed the decision.
"This ban, which was the only one of its kind in the country, has done nothing but undermine the prospects of boys and girls in the foster care system to get permanent, loving homes," said Adam Pertman, the Adoption Institute's executive director, in a written statement.
"So this decision by Judge Lederman is a very important, hopeful ruling for children who need families."
What the Indonesian govt requires for adoption, citizenship, religious affiliation
anything else is of NO CONCERN to the US govt when it comes to recognizing or preserving citizenship status of a natural born US citizen. Check the constitution. Check the State Department website. Check the immigration law statutes and stop making a complete idjit of yourself. You have been hanging in the fringe chat rooms too long. His citizenship was not renounced. I am sure his parents jumped through whatever hoops they needed to in order to live in the country and enroll their child in school, much the same way my own daughter is doing with her child while living in a Moslem country in the Middle East. They hold passports from there AND American passports and do not have to immigrate back to the country of their origin. The US govt turns a blind eye to this and preserves the integrity of its natural born folks. My God, you are a dense one, aren't you?
If checking the adoption records is part of the normal background check, then the only reason this i
x
wrong, full of wrong statements, see my upper post...nm
nm
Wrong Woman - Wrong Message
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-wrong-woman-wrong-message
Wrong, wrong, wrong, clueless Lu.
Horse hockey
Sorry about that...wrong board, wrong name
nm
You're right. Something is definitely wrong
Not with the priests who do the molesting.
Not with the Senator who absolves the priests of blame and instead blames the Liberals.
No. Instead something is definitely wrong with ME for my outrage that a Republican Senator can make such an outlandish, IRRESPONSIBLE statement, instead of trying to SAVE these children and condemning what the priests are doing. Unfortunately, this is typical of the Republican party these days. Typical of the "We are perfect and make no mistakes" mentality that's prevalent in this country. They couldn't be honest if their lives depended on it.
Well, tell us what's wo wrong about what he says?
 You can't, because he just pegged the lot of you like he always does which is why he has the top rated radio show in the country
You got it wrong....
Many of us liberals do not have delicate thoughts about terrorists. But get it through your brain, if you can, that many of us feel that invading Iraq for oil and power WAS NOT THE WAY TO attack or deal with the terrorists. Apparently they're mostly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and what are we doing? Messing around in Iraq. We are LESS safe and I think time will prove that.
WRONG. You know what is
Not everyone is a liar. Only the ones who have done it on this board before and don't deserve to be trusted or believed again.
It's quite simple. If you want to be believed, stop lying.
Then that was wrong
absolutely wrong, and the teacher and school administration were clearly in the wrong. Shouldn't have happened, period.
Wrong.
What posts are you talking about? Either I wasn't here then or you're wrong. I've read through most of the posts but don't remember seeing that. Prove it.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??!
You called her an elitist pig, claiming to mean it in a good way.
She replied with Yup, elistist pig here..Yeehhaaww~~
And now you’re claiming she said she speaks for God.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??!
So was I wrong? And if not...
...what are you getting so huffy about? Just for the fun of it? There's no arrogance in assuming you aren't one of the 1% of the richest people in the country. It's a natural assumption considering you spend so much time here, and why would you bother if you could be off doing whatever pleased you with money being no object? I'm certainly not one of the 1% and you bet I'd be doing something rather than putting up with your petty indignation if I had a virtually limitless income. So I didn't assume a thing about you that you were not free to assume about me in return. What's the big deal -? Are you ashamed anyone might think you're not in the top 1% of wealthiest Americans? Mighty fragile ego, that. Better face reality and get a grip - that's a pretty exclusive club.
What is WRONG with you? sm
Seriously what IS wrong with you? This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Except yet one more occasion to use the word LIAR.
WRONG!
I corrected myself. I admitted to my mistakes. I always admit to my mistakes, and believe me, I make a lot of them. I'm even harsher on me than the neocons are.
If the neocons could just admit to theirs, the dialogue might be more productive.
and *what if* you are wrong?
We both could be wrong. I find debating what if's a waste of time.
The simple answer to any what if question is:
If you're right then I'm wrong. However, I find dealing in knowns a better way to logistically deal with any scenario. You can what if yourself all day long and never get anywhere.
Wrong. nm
 Richard Cohen was right. Sad.
You are all three wrong. TI
Despite the UN ruling that Israel completed its withdrawal from southern Lebanon (UN, June 18, 2000), Hizballah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel still holds Lebanese territory in eastern Mount Dov, a 100-square-mile, largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hizballah with a pretext to continue its activities against Israel. Thus, after kidnapping three Israeli soldiers in that area, it announced that they were captured on Lebanese soil. Israel, which has built a series of observation posts on strategic hilltops in the area, maintains that the land was captured from Syria; nevertheless, the Syrians have supported Hizballah's claim. According to the Washington Post, the controversy benefits each of the Arab parties. For Syria, it means Hizballah can still be used to keep the Israelis off balance; for Lebanon, it provides a way to apply pressure over issues, like the return of Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails. For Hezbollah, it is a reason to keep its militia armed and active, providing a ready new goal for a resistance movement that otherwise had nothing left to resist. In January 2005, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution condemning violence along the Israel-Lebanon border and reasserted that the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions.
Wrong. I did not.
I never said this person was sent to SHUT DOWN down the board, as I was accused of saying by the rude, rabid person you're defending.
I said this person was sent to crash the board (as in INVADE the board, as in someone who would CRASH A PARTY).
Yes, I made the mistake of posting on the other board twice before I read further and realized the nature of these boards. I haven't repeated that mistake since.
I suppose I can expect 3,869 more posts from you to make us even for my two posts.
After reading some posts by you on your board (such as Prophecy certainly is being fulfilled. So much of the world has turned their back on Israel.), I can totally understand your blind, unquestioning loyalty to Israel. You obviously believe the end times are near, and if you don't support Israel, you won't get to spend eternity with people like Ann Coulter. People like you scare me because I believe you will do anything it takes to self-fulfill that prophecy. That is yet another reason why religion and politics don't mix; I can't help but wonder if God told Bush to bring the end times about, which he seems to be intent on doing with his bomb first, ask questions later tactics. After all, God told Bush to go to war with Iraq, and Bush obeyed that order.
I was wrong....sm
He said Fox was off his meds or *acting.* {{same thing}}
Enjoy your show! (and all its *cough* facts).
You are wrong. sm
Noam Chomsky and Ward Chamberlain both made comments that we got what we deserved on 9/11.
you got this one wrong.
I have been to the boards in the last 2 or 3 weeks once. I did not post whatever you are referring to and when I do post I always use my name. I have yet to come up with a reason to hide behind another. It was not me.
Wrong again...
I don't know what other liberals are doing or if they are mad about TV coverage. Secondly, I am reacting to a 1-hour broadcast, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe the new War Czar will see the necessity of administration presence at soldier's funerals. I agree with Democrat that this convocation was quite a bit more pomp and circumstance than Katrina where he showed up in shirtsleeves, made promises and left. I am not mad because liberal causes are not on TV...this has not a thing to do with liberal causes or TV coverage. It was my response to an event.
Wrong AGAIN....
President Bush declared a national day of remembrance for the Katrina victims and there was a great bit of pomp and circumstance as I remember it. I have never seen any administration order half-staff for a natural disaster, no matter who was in power.
you are just wrong
your facts and thoughts are so twisted and convoluted that further discussion with you is futile. Step aside. Next.
Okay, that's just wrong, wrong, wrong!
I'd say that is right up there with Hillary attacking Obama's kindergarten essay. What's wrong with these people and their campaign? Isn't anyone telling them when they have stepped off the deep end into the abyss of bull....
when I'm wrong I'm wrong
Everyone is wrong at one time or another...gotta suck it up and admit it. That's what makes us human. My MIL...she will never admit that she's wrong - infurates DH. When he tries to tell her the truth about certain things if she doesn't want to hear it, mysteriously something will be on the stove burning and she'll have to hang up immediately. Then she doesh't have the decency to call back. LOL
I'm sorry....but you are wrong.
Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice, with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.
So....even though he was not convicted and not told to step down from office....he was still impeached. Only one president has been impeached and told to step down and that was President Andrew Johnson...I do believe. President Nixon chose to resign rather than be impeached.
wrong, wrong
True "feminists" are going to vote for Obama, issues over politician. Any true Hillary followers who followed her for issues will follow her to Obama instead of McCain. Only those few who followed her solely because she was a woman and no other reason will vote for McCain now. Fortunately they will be cancelled out by what one journalist called the "caveman" vote, in this case voting against McCain or just not voting at all because he has a woman on the ticket and no other reason. Oh yeah, they're still out there.
Wrong again, Sam.
It is not that the Soup Nazi didn't have any soup, it is just that he was free to deny soup to anyone he felt was not deserving of it. The same goes for us. We are not obligated to respond to your demands for documentation if we feel you are not deserving of it. Therefore, no soup for you!
You are so wrong!
They're trying to do it in Alaska!!!
Don't get me wrong here
I guess I am always thinking of the future, and about the choices we make today and how it could affect our future. As I said, I have two wonderful lesbian friends (partners) who I love dearly. They are the sweetest women on earth. They mean to harm no one. They have 5 children (3 offsprings of one of the women and 2 they are foster parents to - children of one of the women's sisters, who is a crack addict, and cannot take care of them). These women are wonderful "parents" to these children. It is not that I am against it. I just don't understand it, I guess. I too have nothing against gays or lesbians, as long as they do not try to push their lifestyle off on me. I am just thinking how it just does not seem to be right in the sense of the future, or past for that matter. If same-gender marriage was to be then where would there be offspring? Are you getting where I am coming from here. 
Once again you are wrong
You really need to do some research. What does Iran and the 911 attack have to do with the federal research and bailouts. OP posted a good well researched post. You are just throwing out more rhetoric for the hatred you have toward Sarah Palin. And for what? OP was correct. Stop blaming each side. This started a long time ago and both parties have been in power since it began. For me the question is who has been profiting from it. I'm not blaming either side, but it just goes to show me how corrupt Washington is when people on both sides are making money off of it, then will tax the american people more and tell us we should feel patriotic about it.
As for the 911 attack... there's a lot more involved that one day we will know the whole story (not what is being hand fed to us). SP has been correct in what she has said. We have to stop the fundamentalist no matter what country they are in.
I believe you are wrong, Sam!
The first post regarding Alinsky was posted by someone named Jules regarding a link to the Boston Globe entitled "Son of Communist organizer Saul Alinksy praises Democratic convention and Obama campaign for using his father's methods." You're response to that post was, "holey moley...gonna have to put research into overdrive. Thanks for posting." This can all be found on page 16 of the political forum archives dated 09/02/2008. Since that post on 09/02/2008, you have been dropping Saul Alinksy's name as often as possible.
If you can prove that you were posting messages about Saul Alinsky with regards to the election prior to the above post on 09/02/2008, please provide the archive page number and date for verification.
We look forward to your response.
I said "I believe.." and I did believe, and I was wrong....
I do admit when wrong. However, everything I have posted about Alinsky and Obama regarding Alinsky is true. It can be confirmed.
Well you certainly can't be wrong
You can't even spell his name! Is it intentional? Do you spell your candidate Oblama? What's the deal?
Sorry.....you also have it wrong....
The day before yesterday, Harry Reid was saying if McCain didn't come to Washington and support the bill it would not pass. When McCain said he was going to do just that, only THEN did Reid say don't come we don't need you. Obama made his comment about they will call me if they need me BEFORE Harry Reid said don't come.
But in the grand scheme of things, what does that matter? I want a President who is going to be there, hearing what this bill really is, know what is in it, and not depend on others to do the job I am supposed to be doing. He is still a sitting senator on our payroll and I as an American would prefer he was up there doing his job and getting this fixed, then he can go back to his campaign, which he has been doing for 18 months. For this one piece of legislation, quite possibly the most important he will EVER face as a senator OR a president...putting off a debate for 3 days should not be the issue he has made it. In my opinion.
WRONG!!!WRONG!!!!WRONG!!!
Don't you READ? It was the Clinton who started this mess. It was Barney Fife and others who voted AGAINST safeguards. Dems, dems, dems.
I don't know why it is wrong --
I don't understand what the big deal is - they are not forcing them into voting for one person or another - just offering them the chance to vote.
I also do not find what would be wrong in registering and voting in the same day - in fact, just drove myself to the courthouse and registered this morning and voted this morning... I don't think waiting one more day was going to change my mind in any way or make any difference whatsoever.
what is wrong with this?
I registered to vote yesterday and I then voted, but not because I was cheating - they checked my ID, put my info in the computer, realized I was "approved", then let me vote. Nothing illegal or sinister or cheating about that???
It is just wrong s/m
that you HAVE to work 2 jobs to support yourself or your family. Economy!! It doesn't matter that we cast our votes differently or to what extent we get involved. In retirement I have plenty of time but if EVERYONE will do whatever they can, whether it be emails, phone calls, talking to people...such as on forums or anywhere else they can make their voice heard, things will change. What I do have confidence in is the AMERICAN PEOPLE and I mean the everyday, mainstreet people.
I know that I have already written my sensator (Democrat) and told her that I will vote for whomever runs against her in the next election. I did that over the illegal immigration issue and she did nothing but solidify my opinion of her when she voted for the bail-out.
If your candidate wins I can only hope that you are right and I am wrong. If the one I chose to vote for (very unenthusiastically) wins, I can only pray that I am right.
Wrong there!
IF the Republicans had stood up and caused the bail-out to fail you would have seen nothing but praise from me!!!! IF McCain had stood up against it, in spite of everything else, I MIGHT have been swayed and changed my vote to support him in spite of all my other negative feelings. His support, right along with dubya, solidified my opinion that his administration would be more of business as usual.
Wrong again.
Bush is a Republican.
Democrats are in power in Congress.
Ipso facto, America does not have a fascist government.
or wrong
I totally understand why he took this position. Any other stand starts giving rights to the fetus and embryo. Do I agree with it? No. But it isn't enough to make me want to change my vote. I still believe he is the better choice for president at this time.
|
