Who is to judge and who gets to pick who judges?

Of course, the simple answer is that NO ONE has the right to judge these things but the individuals involved.......unfortunately society has a different opinion though.

I dont know what the law was like in the US back in the 60's when you and I were born Dreamweave, but here in Australia the law stated that women who got pregnant before marriage were "morally degenerate and of lower intelligence" than women who didnt get pregnant before marriage.................obviously the entirety of society, as represented by their elected officials at the time, felt that they had the right to judge what constituted a "better life". Obviously those of us who have lived adoption know better. Many of us have reunited with our first familys and KNOW that our mothers werent the social degenerates they were made out to be......this is true also for the West Australian government who recently apologised for the crimes committed in this state against young unmarried mothers during the BSE.

To the most part, those who are perpetrating the better life myth these days are those who have the most to gain from coercing young women into surrendering their children to adoption.......No one GAVE them the right to judge, thats just something that they took for themselves and they will continue to do so until legistature moves to stop them.

The majority of people have had sex without being married so that justification for 'unfitness for parenthood" is hypocritical. Birth control has a considerable failure rate. People must realize it won't always work and babies result. There is no virtue in the use of so-called "protection."

Babies are not vermin..they are small human beings...the next generation. Parents are not criminals for producing them. Most parents who have lost their children to adoption are just average people.

no one should judge a parent for producing a child.

The adoption industry has preyed on the vulnerable and the young, unmarried parents, as well as those who were poor or ill in order to provide children for those who would pay for children to raise.

Many parents could have raised their children with a little help and some didn't need any help at all.... their children were taken from them, illegally through illegal processes that began in the hospital, or when they went to their doctor, or other health provider.

The baby trade has many players.

Georgia Tann, an early social worker was an indicted baby thief who died before she could serve time. There have been many like her. It hasn't stopped. People don't seem to feel guilt when they deal in children.

Until the general society frowns on the baby trade, it will continue.

It varies by using state. i've got self belief the main basic device for state judges is they are initially appointed, and then run for reelection. Judges' elections are often sure or no, somewhat than a campaign between applicants. yet there are various distinctive structures interior the U. S. -- oftentimes even distinctive interior a state for various point judges. There at the instant are not any elections for federal judges. (word -- in many states on the trial point there's a distinction between a criminal and civil court docket, and a decide sits in in basic terms one. In others, there is not any distinction. on the federal point, the decide hears the two kinds of circumstances, and the comparable is authentic of maximum state appellate courts.)

Who is to judge and who gets to pick who judges? Broadly, those who are able to impose their values and point of view on the rest of society by persuasion, social pressure, or legal sanctions. They do that by some combination of being organised and determined and possibly more ruthless.

With infant adoption it is and I think always was the more socially conservative and religious elements of society who most promoted it. I'm convinced that a large part of the motive for the baby snatch era was really punitive; meaning it was about punishing "bad girls" for having sex and getting pregnant. I suspect there are still more than a few people who think like that even in this day and age.

And don't forget the influence of incentives for some. Nothing like the opportunity to make a comfortable living combined with self-righteousness for little in the way of actual skills to attract some people to be "adoption professionals".

I second that "thank you!"

Who is to judge? People who think they have some right to be in the of the uterus and life of some young woman whom they don't know from Adam; and I for the life of me can't figure out why or who the h*** these control freaks think they are.

Moreover, people who can't produce their own offspring seem to think they have some right to dictate what is better for some other woman's child, as in, you know, giving it to THEM because they think they are so much more worthy and deserving of her child than she is. Sick, sick people...

I honestly couldn't say, most adoptions are from step parents, then foster care.

I work with foster kids who ARE taken into care because their needs were not being met. I don't feel that I am a better person than my kids bio mom, but I assure you they will not be homeless, starved, beaten, or burned in my home. As far as judging...well we left that up to the judge that found the parents unfit.

FYI my kids were teenagers when adopted, they are not white & certainly not infants and that IS what we sought out. Kids that needed families.

"WHO gets to decide that and why?"

Well, it should be a highly trained professional who has the baby's best interests at heart. (Note "should be" not "is".

"When did it become someone else's job to decide what is best for MY (your, her, his) child?"

When there were parents who won't or can't do it for themselves. They do exist. Their babies do need someone looking out for them.

Unfortunately, far too many times, that "WHO" person seems to get it horribly wrong, and the very women who would make a good job of parenting are the ones who give their babies up, because they are the ones who really_do_ care about their children and really do want the best for them. Of course they're not certain they can provide it! Heck, _I_ wasn't certain I was the best mum for my daughter when she was born, and I was 27 and married and she was planned!

I'd take a young mum who was worried about whether they could cope over one who thought it was going to be a doddle any day!

Edit: Or, of course, our reaction to cases like Baby P's could be "we had no right to interfere, parents can do what the hell they like to their kids, including systematic abuse and murder."

Some kids need protecting. Some women SHOULD be judged and found unfit to parent. That's why we have a system. I never said it was perfect. I said it was necessary.

What we need to do is figure out how to make it work better, not to say that battered kids shouldn't be protected from abusers because nobody has the "right" to interfere with their parents.

Ignorant people who would prefer the mother to keep her child as a punishment rather than deciding what is best for the child.

Sorry having bad day.

I think its a matter of what the mother is thinking. She's thinking of what life she can give her child. Nobody can predict the future and it's hard for teenagers to believe that things can get better.

In the cases of babies being born to people who do not want to be parents, it COULD be a better choice because that child, if given to other people through adoption - is given to people who WANT to be parents, it IS better.

Thank you.