[green.tea]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17299828

How outrageous is this.

Did a bit of reading after the gay adoption thread and found this.

Unlike there I don't see what debate there is to be had (in my view. not looking to continue it here). Bearing in mind putting christians with devout muslims is nothing to do with race.

Im astonished that this is going on and has gone on to this point in time. God knows what labours anti racist equality nuts have been playing at for the last 10 years.

Views?

[Salmonidae]

There are so many frankly disgraceful barriers to adoption in the UK. For example is that if a someone smokes and wants to adopt, regardless of how good a parent they are, they will almost certainly get rejected. How is this fair in any way shape or form, if a smoker gave natural birth the government wouldn't come and take the baby away.

As far as I'm concerned as long as you can be a good parent it shouldn't matter if you're black, white, muslim, christian, obese, a smoker, have too many books in the house (yes that is true!) etc.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Salmonidae)
There are so many frankly disgraceful barriers to adoption in the UK. For example is that if a someone smokes and wants to adopt, regardless of how good a parent they are, they will almost certainly get rejected. How is this fair in any way shape or form, if a smoker gave natural birth the government wouldn't come and take the baby away.

As far as I'm concerned as long as you can be a good parent it shouldn't matter if you're black, white, muslim, christian, obese, a smoker, have too many books in the house (yes that is true!) etc.

I read about the book thing too. Beyond words if its true.

While smoking is bad for you the obsession with it has got to the point where i wouldnt be surprised to see no smoking signs at a bonfire. I was once at a trin station and in front of me was a pillar with no smoking sign. Directly behind was a train exhaust billowing thick yellow smoke. So wish id had a camera to hand.

From what i read tho i think theyve changed that to just the under 5s. Or the impression i got from a docu thing ages ago where the adoption people saw the poor stressed woman outside with a cigarette so cancelled tho whole thing. If people are really concerned about air quality theres more pressing issues than people burning little bundles of leaves.

But yeah, anyone who thinks being in a care home is better than chinese parents or parents with too many books is a dick. Not sure about mixing up religions tho tbh. And i wouldnt lt single parents adopt unless i was really stuck for someone. I bet youd struggle to find the correlation you find with single parents and problems with too many books. I can just imagine the sort of jobsworth moron. "They had books in the telly space. Not normal i dont fink."

[Salmonidae]

(Original post by green.tea)
I read about the book thing too. Beyond words if its true.

While smoking is bad for you the obsession with it has got to the point where i wouldnt be surprised to see no smoking signs at a bonfire. I was once at a trin station and in front of me was a pillar with no smoking sign. Directly behind was a train exhaust billowing thick yellow smoke. So wish id had a camera to hand.

From what i read tho i think theyve changed that to just the under 5s. Or the impression i got from a docu thing ages ago where the adoption people saw the poor stressed woman outside with a cigarette so cancelled tho whole thing. If people are really concerned about air quality theres more pressing issues than people burning little bundles of leaves.

But yeah, anyone who thinks being in a care home is better than chinese parents or parents with too many books is a dick. Not sure about mixing up religions tho tbh. And i wouldnt lt single parents adopt unless i was really stuck for someone. I bet youd struggle to find the correlation you find with single parents and problems with too many books. I can just imagine the sort of jobsworth moron. "They had books in the telly space. Not normal i dont fink."

I think on the religious side of things it depends on the age of the child in question. If we are talking a baby here then I really think that it is irrelevant, the baby is not going to have any instilled religious beliefs so why does it matter? Obviously you may start getting trouble if you tried to force a 16 year old of one faith into a household of another.

At the end of the day it should be the child's choice if they are old enough to make that decision, and then if they are not the rules and regulations should be change so that adoption is actually a possible process.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Salmonidae)
I think on the religious side of things it depends on the age of the child in question. If we are talking a baby here then I really think that it is irrelevant, the baby is not going to have any instilled religious beliefs so why does it matter? Obviously you may start getting trouble if you tried to force a 16 year old of one faith into a household of another.

At the end of the day it should be the child's choice if they are old enough to make that decision, and then if they are not the rules and regulations should be change so that adoption is actually a possible process.

Yeah with a baby it wouldnt be so bad. Within reason tho. No obsessive jahovas witness types.

I agree that the kids wishes should always be the deciding factor.

[Salmonidae]

(Original post by green.tea)
Yeah with a baby it wouldnt be so bad. Within reason tho. No obsessive jahovas witness types.

I agree that the kids wishes should always be the deciding factor.

But why no 'obsessive jahovas witness types'? They are allowed to give birth, why not adopt?

[green.tea]

(Original post by Salmonidae)
But why no 'obsessive jahovas witness types'? They are allowed to give birth, why not adopt?

Not in the kids best interests. Blood transfusion stuff. Suicide bombs, forced marriage, unhappiness if they urn out to be gay. Moderate religion only.

[Steevee]

I think the point is rather that we can choose who can adopt though. There are any number of unfit parents out there we can't do much about. But in this situation we can, whilst I don't agree with all the sanctions, I agree with not putting children in religious homes and some other parts of this.

Having children may be a right, but adopting them is not.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Steevee)
I think the point is rather that we can choose who can adopt though. There are any number of unfit parents out there we can't do much about. But in this situation we can, whilst I don't agree with all the sanctions, I agree with not putting children in religious homes and some other parts of this.

Having children may be a right, but adopting them is not.

Yeah. If you put kids with unfit parents its your responsibility. Social services do spend quite a lot of time removing kids from unfit parents.

[Salmonidae]

(Original post by green.tea)
Not in the kids best interests. Blood transfusion stuff. Suicide bombs, forced marriage, unhappiness if they urn out to be gay. Moderate religion only.

But this is all just based on your opinion of jehovahs witnesses. What makes your opinion good enough to override their right to start a family?

[Philippaza]

(Original post by green.tea)
Not in the kids best interests. Blood transfusion stuff. Suicide bombs, forced marriage, unhappiness if they urn out to be gay. Moderate religion only.

there are extremes to every religion, this can relate to most religions i can think of

[green.tea]

(Original post by Salmonidae)
But this is all just based on your opinion of jehovahs witnesses. What makes your opinion good enough to override their right to start a family?

The fact that my sole concern is the kids best interests. Moderate religious people would be the same. Anyone that puts stuff above that shouldnt be able to adopt.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Philippaza)
there are extremes to every religion, this can relate to most religions i can think of

I know. Jahovas witnesses are jut a really good example what with all the transfusion legal battles.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...ry-3547315.php

[Salmonidae]

(Original post by green.tea)
The fact that my sole concern is the kids best interests. Moderate religious people would be the same. Anyone that puts stuff above that shouldnt be able to adopt.

But in their opinion they ARE doing what's best for the children. Why should opinion on what's best override theirs?

[green.tea]

(Original post by Salmonidae)
But in their opinion they ARE doing what's best for the children. Why should opinion on what's best override theirs?

They'd struggle to argue that. Or hire a lawyer that could argue that. Therefore nobody is convinced.

[Salmonidae]

(Original post by green.tea)
They'd struggle to argue that. Or hire a lawyer that could argue that. Therefore nobody is convinced.

If you're talking about denial of blood transfusions and other medical treatment then that actually has no legal issues at all. Obviously suicide bombing is illegal but I feel judging all extreme religious groups as suicide bombers might be a bit...wrong.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Salmonidae)
If you're talking about denial of blood transfusions and other medical treatment then that actually has no legal issues at all. Obviously suicide bombing is illegal but I feel judging all extreme religious groups as suicide bombers might be a bit...wrong.

Im not. Im saying that moderate members of religions should be able to adopt and giving examples of different extremes that shouldnt be.

There clearly is law stopping people denying life saving treatment to kids. My personal view is that the delay caused by litigation is also unacceptable.

[Salmonidae]

(Original post by green.tea)
Im not. Im saying that moderate members of religions should be able to adopt and giving examples of different extremes that shouldnt be.

There clearly is law stopping people denying life saving treatment to kids. My personal view is that the delay caused by litigation is also unacceptable.

Well yes personally I agree nothing should stop life saving treatment to minors at all, but I'm just playing devils advocate in the sense that we can't just decide based on someones religious views whether someone can adopt or not.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Salmonidae)
Well yes personally I agree nothing should stop life saving treatment to minors at all, but I'm just playing devils advocate in the sense that we can't just decide based on someones religious views whether someone can adopt or not.

The kids welfare is the concern here. Not religious freedoms, political correctness or anything else.

[DuncanMono]

I agree with most people that the best interests of the child should be the sole factor in deciding whether an adoption placement is right and getting that child adopted as soon as possible again is another important factor.

But it is also necessary, I think, to consider the wider implication of an adoption and not from a perfect world, rose-tinted point of view. In many areas of the UK ethnicity would not be an issue and neither would a mixed race family. But in other areas, where ethnicity is an issue, it might be important to consider the ethnic background of the child so that s/he is not stuck in a limbo of no know their own identity but feeling excluded because he doesn't fit in with a different identity.