Comments
218,401 - 218,420 of 221,373 Comments Last updated Wednesday Aug 13

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229135 Apr 14, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
Sister Kathryn, while I appreciate that we're on the same page with regard to this topic, I do have to wonder where all this misandry is coming from.
I wouldn't blame you if you had to look that up, it's not a very common word. Misogyny is used so often that it's on everyone's lips these days, but misandry is nevertheless alive and well.
Your posts are consistently peppered with anti-male sentiment, and frankly it's beneath you. I understand having gathered a certain opinion over time, but ultimately if that's all you see in men then you're looking at the wrong men.
As proud as I am to be a feminist and speak loudly in favour of women's rights and abilities, I am also a very proud man and I don't see that there's a reason to mock my entire gender as a crutch to asserting your point of view.
There's shit in both ends of the gene pool, so perhaps it's time those of us who can tell the difference hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Thanks for reading.
You're welcome, Milorad, and I can certainly appreciate your apprehension of my tone as misandrous.(And yes, I'm quite aware of what 'misandry' is, thank-you.)

Condescension, such as you displayed in your post, might have something to do with your interpretation of my particular bent in this regard, but I digress.

I do NOT mock your entire gender. I mock those who serve misogyny for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, such as Lawest100, and Grunt56, with servings of its corollary. If you choose to take that personally, well....I'm a pro-choice kinda gal. So go ahead.

But in fact, sir, I have not mocked you, and have instead made a point to thank you for your public support of the position we apparently share. It's nice to hear from men other than the one I'm ecstatically married to, that the sort of legislation being proposed in this country as regards reproductive rights, responsibilities, and freedoms (or the lack thereof) is inherently dangerous. And INTENSELY hypocritical.

I wish the so-called 'pro-life' folks (of both genders) among us, would get off their high horses with their "every fertilized egg has the right to life" meme, and realize that taking women's rights to bodily autonomy and personal risk assessment, not to mention that of self-defense, is a prelude to the removal of their own.
Milorad Ivovic

Frankston, Australia

#229136 Apr 14, 2013
No, you've not mocked me... but you have indeed mocked men as a whole and I am part of that whole. You've made strong implications as to the entire gender in your overarching but still rather limited opinions.

My condescension only mirrors yours, unfortunately. You have plenty of it yourself.

I had hoped that you'd take my post at face value and maybe re-assess your need to continue down that path which will only ever erode whatever good opinion of you any newcomers such as myself might develop.

I can see your anger runs deep. In many ways I consider that a good thing as long as it remains indignant anger, and not malicious.

-
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I'll just bet.
But I do appreciate your honesty - I'm sure most men thank God they can't get pregnant.
How are you so sure of this, and don't you find that condescending or insulting in any way?

I'm a man, and even I don't think that's true of "most men"... in fact, I'm reasonably sure that most men really quite envy the relationship mothers have with children due in large part to the physical nature of birth.

Pregnancy seems to me to be a VERY small price to pay for that... but alas, there you sit and judge from your position of knowledge. Not one man. Not a single poster to which you refer, but indeed "most men".

How much do you enjoy it when men aimlessly wheel out the "most women" line?

-
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>
Sucks to be a woman, but that's hardly HIS problem - he's a man.
Does it really suck to be a woman? I don't think so. And why isn't that LightForce's problem? Is it because he's a man, or because he's an idiot?

I understand you're discussing a misogynist, but in this case fighting fire with sarcastic fire is... beneath you.

I say that with much respect, as I've gathered VERY quickly that you're capable of more cogent points which don't automatically alienate the few intelligent men who haven't yet silently agreed to endure misandric backlash in the name of feminist progress.

-
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
Pretty easy to sentence someone else to being a state controlled incubator, when you'll never risk being sentenced to it yourself.
Is it really? That tars all men with the same brush. Do you think based on what I've previously written that *I* find it easy?

I don't think most men do, as a matter of fact. It's simply that "most men" identify this topic as something which excites their self-preservation instinct, so you only ever hear from the rabid true-believers.

These are just a few examples from the time I've been posting in this thread. There's a definite undertone of misandry, and my condescension aside... I mention it not because I was born to correct people.

I mention it because other than that undertone which I imagine is VERY easy to develop over the years on the internet...

You're better than that.

I know that I have an abrasive manner about me when I present an argument, and frankly I'm sure you know the same about yourself. I hope we can put our automatic defences on idle after this and continue agreeing as we have been so far about the topic at hand.

I make this gesture and these observations in the spirit of friendship. If it isn't received that way then I'm sure it will be my loss.

Judged:

11

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Ella

Rockford, MI

#229137 Apr 14, 2013
[QUOTE "Ocean 56"]<quoted text>
1. These women can't consider adopting one of the many older children currently in foster care and who don't have a home...WHY, exactly?
[/QUOTE]

The present system is still in dire need of revamping. Over 15+ yrs ago, Debbie Stabbenaw introduced a bill to address the increasing numbers of children who remained in the system for over 10 yrs. Unfortunately, that was only the minor issue in my opinion. Herein lies the problem: Children were often moved through the system (due to State mandated time limits)and placed into foster care with limited transitional time and limited follow up. Our confidentiality laws do not allow the foster parent to be aware of the child's history of abuse. So, let's say the child was sexually or ritualistically abused. They may exhibit verbal aggression, violent outbursts and/or depression. Repeated patterns of these behaviors are often viewed as 'problematic' and many foster parents return the child back into the system because they are 'unmanageable'. You now have a child who is further wounded by an inadequate system of rules and regulations on top of their abuse issues. So the process is repeated and the child is placed into another foster home only to see the same outcome. How do you think this child feels about their worth as a person? Thus, the system becomes a revolving door and a warehouse for deeply wounded children. This is why many opt to adopt foreign children. Foreign governments are upfront with adoptive parents informing them of the child's physical/psychological/medical histories and needs. They do their best to insure the transition process is successful.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229138 Apr 14, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
The present system is still in dire need of revamping. Over 15+ yrs ago, Debbie Stabbenaw introduced a bill to address the increasing numbers of children who remained in the system for over 10 yrs. Unfortunately, that was only the minor issue in my opinion. Herein lies the problem: Children were often moved through the system (due to State mandated time limits)and placed into foster care with limited transitional time and limited follow up. Our confidentiality laws do not allow the foster parent to be aware of the child's history of abuse. So, let's say the child was sexually or ritualistically abused. They may exhibit verbal aggression, violent outbursts and/or depression. Repeated patterns of these behaviors are often viewed as 'problematic' and many foster parents return the child back into the system because they are 'unmanageable'. You now have a child who is further wounded by an inadequate system of rules and regulations on top of their abuse issues. So the process is repeated and the child is placed into another foster home only to see the same outcome. How do you think this child feels about their worth as a person? Thus, the system becomes a revolving door and a warehouse for deeply wounded children. This is why many opt to adopt foreign children. Foreign governments are upfront with adoptive parents informing them of the child's physical/psychological/medical histories and needs. They do their best to insure the transition process is successful.
I found numerous mentions of failed foreign adoptions. Many were on forums and other pages. This one seems pretty reputable. Many of them mentioned "Reactive Attachment Disorder."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/897380/ov...
Ella

Rockford, MI

#229139 Apr 14, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I found numerous mentions of failed foreign adoptions. Many were on forums and other pages. This one seems pretty reputable. Many of them mentioned "Reactive Attachment Disorder."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/897380/ov...
Thanks! I'll check it out now

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229140 Apr 14, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
The present system is still in dire need of revamping. Over 15+ yrs ago, Debbie Stabbenaw introduced a bill to address the increasing numbers of children who remained in the system for over 10 yrs. Unfortunately, that was only the minor issue in my opinion. Herein lies the problem: Children were often moved through the system (due to State mandated time limits)and placed into foster care with limited transitional time and limited follow up. Our confidentiality laws do not allow the foster parent to be aware of the child's history of abuse. So, let's say the child was sexually or ritualistically abused. They may exhibit verbal aggression, violent outbursts and/or depression. Repeated patterns of these behaviors are often viewed as 'problematic' and many foster parents return the child back into the system because they are 'unmanageable'. You now have a child who is further wounded by an inadequate system of rules and regulations on top of their abuse issues. So the process is repeated and the child is placed into another foster home only to see the same outcome. How do you think this child feels about their worth as a person? Thus, the system becomes a revolving door and a warehouse for deeply wounded children. This is why many opt to adopt foreign children. Foreign governments are upfront with adoptive parents informing them of the child's physical/psychological/medical histories and needs. They do their best to insure the transition process is successful.
In other words, prospective adoptive parents find working with the American system.....let's see, what was that word....oh, right - INCONVENIENT. How sad. Surely we as a nation should be up in arms that hundreds of thousands of born children are left floating around in a terrible system because it's INCONVENIENT to adopt them. Surely we should be legislating against this horrible practice of allowing overseas adoptions. Surely we should be crying and waving signs in the parking lots of the Capitol building during legislative sessions on adoption, screeching: "Adopt American Only". The LIVES of these children are so precious, after all...

You people are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229141 Apr 14, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
No, you've not mocked me... but you have indeed mocked men as a whole and I am part of that whole. You've made strong implications as to the entire gender in your overarching but still rather limited opinions.
My condescension only mirrors yours, unfortunately. You have plenty of it yourself.
I had hoped that you'd take my post at face value and maybe re-assess your need to continue down that path which will only ever erode whatever good opinion of you any newcomers such as myself might develop.
I can see your anger runs deep. In many ways I consider that a good thing as long as it remains indignant anger, and not malicious.
-
<quoted text>
How are you so sure of this, and don't you find that condescending or insulting in any way?
I'm a man, and even I don't think that's true of "most men"... in fact, I'm reasonably sure that most men really quite envy the relationship mothers have with children due in large part to the physical nature of birth.
Pregnancy seems to me to be a VERY small price to pay for that... but alas, there you sit and judge from your position of knowledge. Not one man. Not a single poster to which you refer, but indeed "most men".
How much do you enjoy it when men aimlessly wheel out the "most women" line?
-
<quoted text>
Does it really suck to be a woman? I don't think so. And why isn't that LightForce's problem? Is it because he's a man, or because he's an idiot?
I understand you're discussing a misogynist, but in this case fighting fire with sarcastic fire is... beneath you.
I say that with much respect, as I've gathered VERY quickly that you're capable of more cogent points which don't automatically alienate the few intelligent men who haven't yet silently agreed to endure misandric backlash in the name of feminist progress.
-
<quoted text>
Is it really? That tars all men with the same brush. Do you think based on what I've previously written that *I* find it easy?
I don't think most men do, as a matter of fact. It's simply that "most men" identify this topic as something which excites their self-preservation instinct, so you only ever hear from the rabid true-believers.
These are just a few examples from the time I've been posting in this thread. There's a definite undertone of misandry, and my condescension aside... I mention it not because I was born to correct people.
I mention it because other than that undertone which I imagine is VERY easy to develop over the years on the internet...
You're better than that.
I know that I have an abrasive manner about me when I present an argument, and frankly I'm sure you know the same about yourself. I hope we can put our automatic defences on idle after this and continue agreeing as we have been so far about the topic at hand.
I make this gesture and these observations in the spirit of friendship. If it isn't received that way then I'm sure it will be my loss.
I did take your post at face value. Perhaps that's why I responded the way I did, and why, in turn, you felt moved to offer me the one above.
After sifting through that conglomeration of patronizing advice and covert/overt criticisms of my 'ladylike' level, I did find a few slivers of the old olive branch in there. Rather than parse and reply to all of the interesting comments in your post, I'm just going to be the better woman, and allow you to embed those slivers in my palm for now.

But there is one thing I feel compelled to address, and that is your assertion that my 'anger runs deep'.

Of course it does.

I'm continually amazed at the number of people who are surprised by, aghast at, and condemning of, womens' anger. It's as if they firmly believe that women must yield always to good manners, in the face of overwhelming and constant efforts to chip away at, subsume, and dismiss, our rights to medical autonomy and personal risk-assessment when we are pregnant. There are a LOT of similar things I'm angry about, and to be real honest, that's not likely to change.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229142 Apr 14, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
No, you've not mocked me... but you have indeed mocked men as a whole and I am part of that whole. You've made strong implications as to the entire gender in your overarching but still rather limited opinions.
My condescension only mirrors yours, unfortunately. You have plenty of it yourself.
I had hoped that you'd take my post at face value and maybe re-assess your need to continue down that path which will only ever erode whatever good opinion of you any newcomers such as myself might develop.
I can see your anger runs deep. In many ways I consider that a good thing as long as it remains indignant anger, and not malicious.
-
<quoted text>
How are you so sure of this, and don't you find that condescending or insulting in any way?
I'm a man, and even I don't think that's true of "most men"... in fact, I'm reasonably sure that most men really quite envy the relationship mothers have with children due in large part to the physical nature of birth.
Pregnancy seems to me to be a VERY small price to pay for that... but alas, there you sit and judge from your position of knowledge. Not one man. Not a single poster to which you refer, but indeed "most men".
How much do you enjoy it when men aimlessly wheel out the "most women" line?
-
<quoted text>
Does it really suck to be a woman? I don't think so. And why isn't that LightForce's problem? Is it because he's a man, or because he's an idiot?
I understand you're discussing a misogynist, but in this case fighting fire with sarcastic fire is... beneath you.
I say that with much respect, as I've gathered VERY quickly that you're capable of more cogent points which don't automatically alienate the few intelligent men who haven't yet silently agreed to endure misandric backlash in the name of feminist progress.
-
<quoted text>
Is it really? That tars all men with the same brush. Do you think based on what I've previously written that *I* find it easy?
I don't think most men do, as a matter of fact. It's simply that "most men" identify this topic as something which excites their self-preservation instinct, so you only ever hear from the rabid true-believers.
These are just a few examples from the time I've been posting in this thread. There's a definite undertone of misandry, and my condescension aside... I mention it not because I was born to correct people.
I mention it because other than that undertone which I imagine is VERY easy to develop over the years on the internet...
You're better than that.
I know that I have an abrasive manner about me when I present an argument, and frankly I'm sure you know the same about yourself. I hope we can put our automatic defences on idle after this and continue agreeing as we have been so far about the topic at hand.
I make this gesture and these observations in the spirit of friendship. If it isn't received that way then I'm sure it will be my loss.
I did take your post at face value. Perhaps that's why I responded the way I did, and why, in turn, you felt moved to offer me the one above.
After sifting through that conglomeration of patronizing advice, and covert/overt criticisms of my 'ladylike' level, I did find a few slivers of the old olive branch in there. Rather than parse and reply to all of the interesting comments in your post, I'm just going to be the better woman, and allow you to embed those slivers in my palm for now.

But there is one thing I feel compelled to address, and that is your assertion that my 'anger runs deep'.

Of course it does.

I'm continually amazed at the number of people who are surprised by, aghast at, and condemning of, womens' anger. It's as if they firmly believe that women must yield always to good manners, in the face of overwhelming and constant efforts to chip away at, subsume, and dismiss, our rights to medical autonomy and personal risk-assessment when we are pregnant. There are a LOT of similar things I'm angry about, and to be real honest, that's not likely to change.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229143 Apr 14, 2013
Sorry for the double post, folks. Not sure what happened there.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229144 Apr 14, 2013
Actually, I changed my mind. Please consider the following in reply to your reply, Mr. Ivovic.

“No, you've not mocked me... but you have indeed mocked men as a whole and I am part of that whole. You've made strong implications as to the entire gender in your overarching but still rather limited opinions.”

Well, let’s see.
So far, you’ve categorized me as indiscriminate, and my opinions as ‘overarching and limited’. If this was intended to engender warm fuzzy feelings on my part toward your criticism of the rest of my post, I’m afraid it fell rather short.

“My condescension only mirrors yours, unfortunately. You have plenty of it yourself.
I had hoped that you'd take my post at face value and maybe re-assess your need to continue down that path which will only ever erode whatever good opinion of you any newcomers such as myself might develop.”

Perhaps you should consider ‘reassessing’ what appears to be YOUR need to plant me on a path I wasn’t on, and then attempt to convince me to diverge from it. That’s not going to work either.

“I can see your anger runs deep. In many ways I consider that a good thing as long as it remains indignant anger, and not malicious.”

I covered this previously. Apparently, twice.

“Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
I'll just bet.
But I do appreciate your honesty - I'm sure most men thank God they can't get pregnant.
How are you so sure of this, and don't you find that condescending or insulting in any way?
I'm a man, and even I don't think that's true of "most men"... in fact, I'm reasonably sure that most men really quite envy the relationship mothers have with children due in large part to the physical nature of birth.”

With few exceptions, my personal experience of men’s feelings about pregnancy, do not reflect the opinions in the above statement. You’ll pardon me if my personal experience trumps your say-so…..but I’m happy to entertain the idea that this is indeed YOUR opinion, if not that of the many men (in my experience) who have indicated otherwise.

“Pregnancy seems to me to be a VERY small price to pay for that... but alas, there you sit and judge from your position of knowledge. Not one man. Not a single poster to which you refer, but indeed "most men".

The individual posters to whom I referred, I addressed or directly alluded to. Please indicate one time I’ve addressed or alluded to you personally, with this level or content of sarcasm. I daresay, the gentleman doth protest too much.

At the risk of running out of space, this post will be continued in another text block to follow.
I apologize for any inconvenience.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229145 Apr 14, 2013
Continued...

As to the idea that pregnancy is a “small price to pay” for the opportunity to gestate and give birth, I must tell you (although, frankly, I’m quite sure you are already aware) that it is, and it isn’t. Pregnancy, as I’m also certain you’re aware, entails grave and permanent risks to one’s health and life. Part of the reason for the ferocity with which we mothers protect and defend our children, is that we risked a lot, sacrificed a lot, and worked DAMN HARD, to bring them here. Please pardon my crudity, but “small price” my ass. If you REALLY want to, however, there is finally a procedure by which a man can carry a pregnancy to term. The laboratory and offices which offer it, are located in Amsterdam. Your envy is no longer warranted. I sincerely look forward to hearing from the gloriously pregnant you, when you return to your own country and are ready to post about the incredible experience.

“How much do you enjoy it when men aimlessly wheel out the "most women" line?”

About as much as you did when I purposely wheeled it back, at those by whom such juggernauts are routinely aimed at me. My posts were made from my perception of THEIR points of view, as exemplified by THEIR many responses to my posts on the thread. Again, I fail to see why you would take personally, criticism which was not directed at you. Unless, for some reason you feel it would have been warranted.
-
“Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>
Sucks to be a woman, but that's hardly HIS problem - he's a man.
Does it really suck to be a woman? I don't think so. And why isn't that LightForce's problem? Is it because he's a man, or because he's an idiot?”

If I had to apply Lawest100's “logic”, dictums, and limitations to my own circumstances as a matter of legal obligation, it would certainly suck to be a woman. Fortunately, I do not. But I’m sure that particular poster wishes, with all the wormwood in his heart, that every woman did. Sorry if you thought I was referring to you there - let me reiterate that I wasn’t.

“I understand you're discussing a misogynist, but in this case fighting fire with sarcastic fire is... beneath you. I say that with much respect, as I've gathered VERY quickly that you're capable of more cogent points which don't automatically alienate the few intelligent men who haven't yet silently agreed to endure misandric backlash in the name of feminist progress.”

Pardon me, but are you serious with this? In the first place, I like sarcasm. Fighting fire with fire has been proven to be effective in many instances – why should I limit myself to being ‘ladylike’ and demure?
I can understand, however, your resentment that men like him have curdled the milk of motherly kindness in women – I’m not any crazier about Kim Kardashian’s example of ‘womanhood’ than I am with the example of ‘manhood’ offered by Lawest100, or Grunt56, truth be told.

Unfortunately, due to limited space, I again must defer the remainder of this post to another text box.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229146 Apr 14, 2013
And yet again, Continued...

From your post:“Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
Pretty easy to sentence someone else to being a state controlled incubator, when you'll never risk being sentenced to it yourself.
Is it really? That tars all men with the same brush. Do you think based on what I've previously written that *I* find it easy?”

Again, that post was directed, very specifically, in reply to the poster to whom I replied. Your name was nowhere in there. I was referring to Lawest100, and replying TO HIM. Not castigating you.
Calm down.

“I don't think most men do, as a matter of fact. It's simply that "most men" don’t identify this topic as something which excites their self-preservation instinct, so you only ever hear from the rabid true-believers.”
And yet again – those assertions were intended for the rabid true-believers to whom I replied. I fail to see why you continue to infer that I meant you, simply because you are male. But if the shoe fits…..by all means, have a shoehorn.

“These are just a few examples from the time I've been posting in this thread. There's a definite undertone of misandry, and my condescension aside... I mention it not because I was born to correct people. I mention it because other than that undertone which I imagine is VERY easy to develop over the years on the internet... You're better than that. I know that I have an abrasive manner about me when I present an argument, and frankly I'm sure you know the same about yourself. I hope we can put our automatic defenses on idle after this, and continue agreeing as we have been so far about the topic at hand.”

I will, if you will.
&#61514;

"I make this gesture and these observations in the spirit of friendship. If it isn't received that way then I'm sure it will be my loss."

We’ll figure it out. We just have to get more comfortable with one another, and refrain from unwarranted criticisms of each others contributions to the conversation.

I'm quite sure attempting to continue on the feet upon which we apparently got started, would be an exercise in futility.

Peace.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#229147 Apr 14, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, and a lot of harassed and stressed-out parents secretly envy the CF because they DO have the freedom to do the things those parents can't do anymore. They seldom admit that, of course.
When DS started school full time, I had several hours of free time to do things that I enjoyed, and still be back in time to get him off the bus when he got home. I was able to do this because DS didn't have baby or toddler siblings that needed constant attention. More than once I was on the receiving end of the snarky comments from parents of two, three, or more kids, like "must be nice to do what you want..." and similar barbs. I would just smile and say, "yes, it really IS!" and be on my way.
I have been on the receiving end of those same barbs. Sigh. I just will never understand why some people believe everyone should want the same things out of life. My passion is animals and because I'm not a parent, I'm able to indulge that passion through volunteering, fostering, etc. Then of course I get called the crazy cat lady, which in all honesty I don't find offensive. The other thing I notice is how competitive and duplicitous many mothers are. Standing around judging another's parenting, bragging how their kid did better than some other person's kid...all the while smiling and acting like they're the best of friends.

And one more thing - and this one really irritates me - someone telling me that my life doesn't or can't have any real purpose unless I have children. A friend of mine ACTUALLY said that to me. I was dumbfounded. This person is also uber religious, so I'm sure that had something to do with it, but when I explained to them that it is quite possible to derive a sense of purpose from other things, they dismissed me and gave me that ol "you can't possibly understand because you're not a parent."
Milorad Ivovic

Frankston, Australia

#229149 Apr 15, 2013
I'm sorry, I lost interest a few sentences into your self-aggrandising post. It didn't help that I was already barely clinging to the respect I'd already lost for you.

Misnadry =/= Equality.

It's no wonder so many here don't take you seriously. They just know you better than I did at first.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229150 Apr 15, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I found numerous mentions of failed foreign adoptions. Many were on forums and other pages. This one seems pretty reputable. Many of them mentioned "Reactive Attachment Disorder."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/897380/ov...
How about successful foreign adoptions? Why is it you always go to the negative sources,other than to try and prove that abortion is just fine.
No one here says every adoption is perfect,there are problems in all parents and children.

Heres an interesting link.http://www.comeunity.com/ adoption/Groza.html

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229151 Apr 15, 2013

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229152 Apr 15, 2013
try this
sorry to early to be typing
Ocean56

AOL

#229153 Apr 15, 2013
Ella wrote:
The present system is still in dire need of revamping. Over 15+ yrs ago, Debbie Stabbenaw introduced a bill to address the increasing numbers of children who remained in the system for over 10 yrs. Unfortunately, that was only the minor issue in my opinion. Herein lies the problem: Children were often moved through the system (due to State mandated time limits)and placed into foster care with limited transitional time and limited follow up. Our confidentiality laws do not allow the foster parent to be aware of the child's history of abuse. So, let's say the child was sexually or ritualistically abused. They may exhibit verbal aggression, violent outbursts and/or depression. Repeated patterns of these behaviors are often viewed as 'problematic' and many foster parents return the child back into the system because they are 'unmanageable'. You now have a child who is further wounded by an inadequate system of rules and regulations on top of their abuse issues. So the process is repeated and the child is placed into another foster home only to see the same outcome. How do you think this child feels about their worth as a person? Thus, the system becomes a revolving door and a warehouse for deeply wounded children. This is why many opt to adopt foreign children. Foreign governments are upfront with adoptive parents informing them of the child's physical/psychological/medical histories and needs. They do their best to insure the transition process is successful.
I see. So it's not...um...CONVENIENT or EASY for these women to adopt children currently in the foster care system because some of these children might have "problems." So they would prefer to adopt perfect, healthy babies with little or preferably NO problems. Therefore, they "take the easy way out" by adopting cute little babies overseas. Got it.

But guess what, NO woman has to be a baby factory for the infertile women who will only accept an infant to adopt. If she doesn't WANT to be pregnant, she isn't forced to remain that way to supply infertile women with infants.
Ocean56

AOL

#229154 Apr 15, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
And one more thing - and this one really irritates me - someone telling me that my life doesn't or can't have any real purpose unless I have children. A friend of mine ACTUALLY said that to me. I was dumbfounded. This person is also uber religious, so I'm sure that had something to do with it, but when I explained to them that it is quite possible to derive a sense of purpose from other things, they dismissed me and gave me that ol "you can't possibly understand because you're not a parent."
OH yeah, I see that "life doesn't have any purpose unless you have children" nonsense quite often, especially on abortion debate forums. There is another forum I post on, and there are a few uber religious types there who have made the same kind of idiotic statements.

I am definitely NOT religious and don't buy that archaic attitude, it's a reminder of that moronic and offensive "woman's place" mindset which was so common in the 18th and 19th centuries. The "woman's place" being, of course, the home and nowhere else. I have zero patience with that regressive mentality, so I have no problem telling these anti-choice imbeciles what they can do with the whole "woman's place" thing.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229155 Apr 15, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>How about successful foreign adoptions? Why is it you always go to the negative sources,other than to try and prove that abortion is just fine.
No one here says every adoption is perfect,there are problems in all parents and children.
Heres an interesting link.http://www.comeunity.com/ adoption/Groza.html
I have NEVER stated abortion is "just fine." Prove me wrong.

She stated that foreign adoptions were easier. I was making a point.

Of course it went over your head.

Are you going to tell me what I supposedly lied about? Or was that yet another lie?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min Epiphany2 600,203
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 6 min Johnny 2,548
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min It aint necessari... 734,001
Judge Mathew J. Gary (Jun '12) 27 min Ghost 27
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 30 min AussieBobby 258,212
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 31 min Sameer 769
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr The Awakener 173,311
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 2 hr JUDEletePete 118,132
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr truth 539,557
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••