proposal to replace biological parenthood with adoption

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mickey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
2
Each person is a haphazard combination of a random ovum out of 60 and a random sperm out of quadrillions. Regardless of biological parents, therefore, the way a new person is, is almost totally random. Since there are far more differences between people than there are similarities, this makes it almost a certainty that a new person will be incompatible with their biological family. It is this incompatibility that leads to nearly all conflict among blood relatives, especially those forced to share a home.

While people don't choose their blood relatives, however, parents can choose adoptive children, and to some extent children can choose adoptive parents. This makes it possible to ensure compatibility between members of an adoptive family, which just isn't possible with a biological family. So I am proposing a new law that requires all newborns to be given up for adoption, thoroughly tested to determine what sorts of people they are and what other people they would be compatible with, and then adopted by new parents who have also been thoroughly tested.

Discuss.
 
This would have started with "You and whose army" and probably ended in my death fighting for my newborn son to the last
 
Would the OP want it to apply to himself and any of his Children if he has any, or has any in the future?
Or would this only apply to other's?
 
I'm not sure if this is a joke thread, but i'm going to assume it isn't. So in that case, i think you are wrong and i will tell you why i think that.

DNA. For as far as i know, this is found in pretty much every cell in your body. Meaning that it will merge when the sperm cell and egg cell meet and don't reject each other. Or whatever the flirting process is down there.

I am sick and tired of people blaming genetics for all sorts of things, though your question is pretty original, i'll give you that. I don't have kids, but i reckon alot of the "problems" you describe is due to bad parenting. To me it just looks like you're trying to put the blame on something else. Not considered as offensive as blaming a gender, but it's the same thing.
 
As a parent, let me just say....What the fresia, Dude??????
Shall we put a **** store in the mall?

Also, you don't exactly get to know a child all that well when you adopt, you don't spend years with the child getting to know them on a daily basis, as you do when they are living with you day after day.
Aside from that, if you adopt a BABY, there is no **** difference at all whether said baby is with the biological parents or adoptive parents.
 
Most of the problems with broken families these days have to do with 4 related factors:

1. HUMILITY - A general lack of humility in modern culture. Humility is a natural symptom of honest assessment of the human condition.
To be overly proud requires one to feverishly cling to ignorance of just how fragile and insignificant we each are in this Universe. With a little practical humility, we can easily learn to appreciate others' different personal qualities and perspectives.

2. HONOR - A confusion about the difference between pride and genuine Honor.
'Pride' is very self-absorbed, and arises out of a fear of admitting one is ultimately very small in the grander scheme of things.
True 'Honor', however, arises out of recognizing a bigger picture, bravely assessing one's realistic place in that picture, and then actively fulfilling a mutually beneficial role within one's own family and the greater community.
Living honorably requires acknowledging that Life simply doesn't revolve around ourselves, and acting accordingly. This makes for a strong and prosperous society.

One way to look at it is: Pride (selfish) is the enemy of Love (charitable), whereas Honor is the harmonizing of Love and pride, through realizing: "the best way to serve myself is to serve the family, community, and society whom I am utterly dependent upon for my own well-being and happiness." -- 'symbiosis'

If we're raised to believe that 'competition' makes us stronger than 'cooperation' (not to be confused with 'submission' -- note the 'co' in the word co-operation) does, then we end up thinking that knocking someone else down, is synonymous with lifting ourselves up, and so consequently, we all end up knocked down constantly, and society as a Whole, is rarely ever lifted up.

Any objective evaluation leads to the irrefutable fact that Harmony is much stronger than Chaos, when it comes to meeting our basic human needs, as well as achieving our greatest potential as a species.

3. RESPONSIBILITY - A failure to understand that 'responsibility' means the 'ability' to rationally 'respond' to varying situations, as opposed to mindlessly 'reacting' to emotional impulses.
This is our edge as humans over other species; our unmatched capacity for complex communication facilitates a global scale of cooperation between us, and thus affords us a greater potential for adaptability to varying environments and conditions than any other species. Responsibility = Adaptability = Sustainability.

4. HONESTY - By being dishonest with ourselves and with each other -- all pretending that we're the 'Center' of the Universe, we end up fighting too much over the 'Throne' of Life.
When we deceive each other, over Time, we grow out of touch with Reality, and thus can't achieve sensible humility, nor courageous honor, nor practical responsibility, as these each require a realistic assessment of our environment.


CONCLUSION: Bottom line is, we get along a lot better the more we learn how to love others without feeling a "need" to control who they are.
 
0doc said:
CONCLUSION: Bottom line is, we get along a lot better the more we learn how to love others without feeling a "need" to control who they are.

Ain't that the truth... I really don't get the concept of the original post, and I'll admit now, I really don't care. But biological or adopted, people can still have the same issues. It's completely irrelevant to some things.
 
This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Children aren't something you go to the store and buy.
 
Have you ever read Brave New World, mickey? There's a similar concept in it to the one you outlined.
 
VanillaCreme said:
0doc said:
CONCLUSION: Bottom line is, we get along a lot better the more we learn how to love others without feeling a "need" to control who they are.

Ain't that the truth... I really don't get the concept of the original post, and I'll admit now, I really don't care. But biological or adopted, people can still have the same issues. It's completely irrelevant to some things.
The main concept the OP is presenting is the notion of "personality chemistry", as in romantic relationships, but being extended to apply to parent/child relationships as well. I know that "chemistry" does make it easier or harder for people to work together, but being sincere toward one another makes loving possible no matter the "chemistry".
 
I am curious to know what kind of tests these are that can determine a newborns future compatibility with a family.
 
0doc said:
VanillaCreme said:
0doc said:
CONCLUSION: Bottom line is, we get along a lot better the more we learn how to love others without feeling a "need" to control who they are.

Ain't that the truth... I really don't get the concept of the original post, and I'll admit now, I really don't care. But biological or adopted, people can still have the same issues. It's completely irrelevant to some things.
The main concept the OP is presenting is the notion of "personality chemistry", as in romantic relationships, but being extended to apply to parent/child relationships as well. I know that "chemistry" does make it easier or harder for people to work together, but being sincere toward one another makes loving possible no matter the "chemistry".

That can't possibly be determined in newborns. So the ridiculous law he proposed is useless.
 
Oh mickey, you're such a honeysuckle-stirrer!:rolleyes2:

Kept in a theoretic sense, I find the question interesting. I KNOW for a FACT (read "anecdotally") that severe damage happens when your mother doesn't love you. My question therefore is, if an infant is given a non-biological mother who DOES love them, how would it compare with the biological mother who DOES love them, controlling for other factors?

BTW, I have two kids and I would rip the arms off of anyone who tried to take them from me.
 
Minus said:
I am curious to know what kind of tests these are that can determine a newborns future compatibility with a family.
Right? :p


Sometimes said:
Oh mickey, you're such a honeysuckle-stirrer!:rolleyes2:

Kept in a theoretic sense, I find the question interesting. I KNOW for a FACT (read "anecdotally") that severe damage happens when your mother doesn't love you. My question therefore is, if an infant is given a non-biological mother who DOES love them, how would it compare with the biological mother who DOES love them, controlling for other factors?

BTW, I have two kids and I would rip the arms off of anyone who tried to take them from me.
I agree that it's an interesting topic, and yeah I'm surprised government children's protective services people don't get murdered more often for selling people's children to adoption agencies instead of helping the families learn how to function better together.
 
I don't see how compatibility and genetics are relevant to each other...

But literally speaking, if the child is not mentally ill they would not be the problem. The parents are the ones who mold the child's behavior whether it be rational or not.
Your proposition is ridiculous because (1). You're assuming every family is incompatible, which is oversimplification and illogical. (2). You're basing a child's future off of too little evidence. (3). In order to absorb your proposition, one has to understand your subjective definition of incompatibility.
 
Psycho said:
I don't see how compatibility and genetics are relevant to each other...

But literally speaking, if the child is not mentally ill they would not be the problem. The parents are the ones who mold the child's behavior whether it be rational or not.
Your proposition is ridiculous because (1). You're assuming every family is incompatible, which is oversimplification and illogical. (2). You're basing a child's future off of too little evidence. (3). In order to absorb your proposition, one has to understand your subjective definition of incompatibility.
Yeah, from what I've learned of neuro-science, they haven't been able to assess much about consciousness by looking at genetic patterns.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top