Often during the abortion debate, adoption is proffered as a solution which might make abortion unnecessary in most cases. Most people on both sides of the debate find adoption at the very least less problematic than abortion, and wish to see it promoted as an option. The primary roadblock to this solution being in any way practical, however, is that there aren’t nearly enough prospective parents willing to adopt. Of those willing, some are not able, and some are overly selective about who they are willing to adopt.
One would think then that anything to make adoption easier and broaden the pool of the number of people who can provide for children effectively to be a welcome change.
Unfortunately, a family court in Georgia doesn’t see it that way. As covered over at the Volokh Conspiracy, in a March 2010 decision, the court ruled that a late middle aged couple who had been foster parents to an infant girl and decided to adopt her were not suitable to adopt, even after acting as her foster parents for three years. What was the one factor that disqualified them?
They weren’t married.
Interestingly, according to Georgia law, being married is not a requirement for legal adoption. The court, in a rare and flagrant case of conservative judicial activism, decided to ignore the strictures of the law and substitute its own moral judgment, saying: “[the couple were] living in an immoral, meretricious relationship, … and that the adoption and their continued custody is inappropriate.”
Thankfully, a Georgia Appeals Court swiftly reversed the decision. Still, it shows just how far reaching of a hold that religious categories of sexual morality, and specifically a monomaniacal emphasis on marriage as the only appropriate form of sexual relationship, can have even today in the context of a simple legal proceeding. It is remarkable that the hold of those beliefs overpowered consideration for the well-being of the child as well as adherence to the law.
It’s not just the unmarrieds and gays being excluded that gums up the works, it’s a few more things, too, that nobody ever addresses.
For example, I am a 34 y.o. woman, married, with a stable job, just barely getting by. I do NOT want children. I am not healthy enough, my husband has MS, we don’t have money, we don’t want children. Suppose I got pregnant and could survive a pregnancy. I could a) get an abortion and no one would ever know, or b) give the baby up for adoption and every single person I know, work with and am related to would hate me. Forever. They would not forgive me. Think about it, would you or most people you know easily accept a decision like that? Of course not.
It’s easy to see why adoption is not the preferred option. (Never mind the visit 18 years later and all the questions that won’t have any good answers to that person.)
/rant
I remember when I used to be anti-choice, and had inherited from those around me a very flippant attitude to the adoption idea. It was seen as so simple. “Can’t keep the baby? Oh, just get it adopted.” As if there was nothing to it. Clearly there is so, so much to it that it is a very impractical solution in many cases, but I don’t recall any supposed pro-lifers around me particularly thinking about it, and I didn’t think about it either. As far as I was concerned, a woman who thought avoiding a little discomfort in pregnancy and childbirth was more important than the life of their own child was wickedly selfish.
Ironic, then, that it was really my own self-centredness in desiring above all else to Think The Right Thing in order to please my skydaddy that prevent me from having what should have been Christian compassion for these women.
Welcome to the group of humans who consider women as more than mobile incubators.
That was hard to say, as I generally have thought anyone who has the mindset you used to have as not able to change, not redeemable, born anencephalic, and simply (as in simpletons) unable to think and therefore unable ever to learn or change their mind. Still the norm, anyway, it seems.
Ja, I also like how they never consider the “quality-of-life” that that kid will have. Growing up without a family or parents can seriously screw a kid up. Yah, I’m sure there are exceptions but I imagine they are rare.
I know it can seem harsh to some, but I find that this is similar to what people do with their pets. When a large majority of people have a pet that gets sick, injured or in a general state of constant pain and agony, they will try to keep that thing alive for as long as they can. They tend not to consider the quality of life of the animal but rather feel bad about having it put down; seeing death as a worse alternative. The general populous seems to have a really odd way of looking at death, probably due to how religion and older styles of punishment (mainly capital punishment I suppose) have made death seem horrible.
What gets me angry is that those who say that adoption is better than abortion generally don’t adopt. I find that hypocritical.
Fundie: “Hey, I love life so much, that I want to tell people what to do with their lives so as not to destroy a life of a baby I don’t know and gets put up for adoption where he/she might live a long time in an orphanage and have a worse time than with a loving family but I don’t want to adopt because I don’t love life so much as to provide a better life for the to be put up for adoption child.”
I just think that pro-lifers would think about the resultant life of the person and not the right after birth person.
Sorry but… what is the point in giving birth to then give the baby up for adoption? I still can’t see why that is an option of choice. I mean, you can’t/don’t want to raise a kid? Perfect, just don’t have one.
I bet there are more emotional problems for the mother with an adoption than an abortion. What if ten years/twenty years after you change your mind? With an abortion what is done is done, with an adoption you probably are going to screw up your life, your child’s life or the adoptive parents life.
But yet… I’m not a woman neither I have any childs, so I may not understand the parental love even if they never saw “their” child.
When you are pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, you are criticized for whatever your choice is. What kind of mother adopts out her child??? What kind of mother KILLS her own child??? What kind of mother brings a child into the world that she can’t afford to keep???
So in the name of some bronze age concept the judge (and where are all the morons who cry about activist judges are when it’s a right wing activism) is wiling to tear a child out of the what is probably the only home she ever knew and throw her back into the system where, her not being an infant anymore, her chances of getting adopted are basically nill. And these people feel they have the right to lecture others about morality.
I find the attitude of these people so absolutely HIPPO-critical as to be bat-schite crazy.
Married Man/woman is the only combination that is OK.
Like the one were one of them dies?
Like the one were the man/woman runs off after a year?
Like where the man/woman is an abuser? Drunk? Drugs?
Or even worse…they are fundies that will brainwash the poor kids with their personal brand theostarded schite about their version of psychotic sky-fairy?
I know 2 unmarried couples, 4 gay couples, and 5 singles that I would trust with my kids for any length of time and I would not trust them to most religious types. Yes I know there are many very nice religious couples, but all the ones I’ve met fit into one of the groups above.
Adaptions should be considered by only two things are they nice people (most holeier-than-thou’s) are not nice by definition) and do they have sufficient income at that time. Parenting is always a crap shoot, there is no way to know if they will work out in the long run.
the entire adoption industry in this nation is and always has been a capitalist elitist and HIGHLY MISOGYNIST scam.
And religion is and always has been the backbone of this industry, as well as economists [labor pool] and race purists. Race purists/Odinists and Christianity you can pretty much lump into one, Nordic Christianity and of course, the church of ROME, city on the hill, Greece, the whole pyramid and all that.
Liberals too [esp of far left/nationalist bent] are just as guilty, the social engineers that too are race purists and ‘genetic purists’. They also have had a lot of input on adoption policies, forced sterilization, etc, esp of women of color and the poor.
But more so with the right religious wing, adoption like welfare [in the day when welfare was used for ghetto infrastructure and to keep 'white poor women' in her place] is a political social engineering tool. A good link, about the truth about Adoption
http://www.exiledmothers.com/babies_taken_for_adoption/index.html
what the pro-life fascists [and yes they are fascists] and the social engineers Don’t want you to hear.
Why is this relevant? Because it’s also intertwined and related to how trafficking works, of domestic slaves and sex slaves–as well as organ theft. Not only that, the thing to day is also the rich, purchasing ‘surrogates’, poor women in India, to have children for them,
for little money. These poor women who already have children will do this because they are Desperate, to care for the children they have. It is a dirty business,
ironically those who adopt/exploit [it IS EXPLOITATION] this way say they are doing these women a service but these women have to Pay for their medical which is somewhat non-existent in many parts of India, a nation where cell phones are numerous but maternal mortality is one of the highest, lack of prenatal and no clean drinking water, because women are disposable,
and who better to exploit, than women of color in poor nations. All right wing supported through anti-birth control [pro-life] right wing CHRISTIAN policies–and of course, hey, it’s great slave labor [children], constant labor pool supply and of course, sex slaves, that boost tourism–business commerce, the younger the better, demand for virgins to rape and not have to worry about HIV.
Yea I mean the whole thing just wreaks of corruption and lies, that goes So much deeper than just who can adopt who cannot. And the little I just mentioned, isn’t even the tip of the iceberg.
Jane
I would say that money, not religion is the backbone of the adoption industry. I investigated adoption at one time, and my race was not an issue, unless I wanted to adopt an American Black child (this was in MD.)
“Liberals too [esp of far left/nationalist bent] are just as guilty,”
What?? Are you talking about Eastern European social engineering, or what? I would call that nationalism more than racism or socialism/communism. The Serbs were quite willing to kill very White babies of other nationalities. Examples, please.
“Liberals too [esp of far left/nationalist bent] are just as guilty,”
What?? Are you talking about Eastern European social engineering, or what? I would call that nationalism more than racism or socialism/communism. The Serbs were quite willing to kill very White babies of other nationalities. Examples, please.’
how many examples do you want, it would take a history book, seriously do I need to go into all the descriptors of the religious/philosophical class-capitalist influence/social controls/infrastructure here? Religion sure as hell is behind it, religion is behind the majority of our infrastructures, economy, social controls, you name it. As for the liberals [those who are supportive of policies] gee, now we’re getting into CLASS,
do we Really want to go there? Because CLASS is a huge part of it, the whole bourgeoisie mentality–criminalizing of the poor [women] and yes racism is part of it too–I shouldn’t have to give examples or explain and if WE don’t know this by now, we’re either in support OF the status qua or in ignorance/denial, whichever.
And yes I do confront and attack it from the perspective of Class and apologetically so. AS for social engineering, one does not have to be Eastern European former Soviet Bloc to be a social engineer, there are 13 varieties of FASCISM, both right wing and left wing, elitism and representative elitism/oppression of the minority does not need an iron fist despot demi-god ruler, and as for Serbia, ~sigh~ I really don’t have the time to get into all the details contrasted with the media hype bullshit that is spoon fed to America here, no offense OK, but I just don’t do the whole Cold War arguments anymore, American ‘pop’ corporate media nonsense–
one does not have to follow some race purity creed to be a totalitarian or a social engineer, hell marketing of Consumption is one of the biggest social engineer mass brainwashing organisms ever created, please–Capitalism’s best. That feeds into that whole entitlement mentality–Serbia and the conflict in the Balkan region is not just Serbs killing white babies, good grief [and should I even DARE to go into the silence, deliberate I might add, of the butchering/trafficking of women, of Serbian women and Yugoslavian women by Muslims, that WE in the West sure as hell won't hear about but it is happening--my point being, Serbia and the conflicts there were multi-issued, meaning, it wasn't just bad Serbs killing white babies/nationalism, actually it was ETHNIC CONFLICT, NOT NATIONALISM, though there are nationalist parties, including IN Croatia, numerous splinter groups, etc., OF varying ideological bents, and it was an ethnic conflict fueled not only by leaders but by other OUTSIDE interests who wanted minerals, oh yea that little part we Don't hear about--why the IMF was there in Bosnia wanting to develop before the blood was even off the ground, backed by good ole Christan America, need I say more. [just like in numerous other conflicts, example, do some reading on the Congo--how WE benefit from the mass rapes/torture of women there, those cute little cell phones], but anyway,
and no I didn’t and am not a supporter of the Serb nationalist party, I advocate for women’s human rights–regardless, of who they are, I only comment on that because using Serbia as an example opens up so much that well, it’s just a poor comparison of the social engineering there/and the history of tensions there, compared to the social engineering HERE that is based on yes, racism, class [especially class] and misogyny that yes IS backed and fueled and PAID FOR, BY NONE OTHER THAN RELIGION.
and the fact is, one of the largest ideological influences behind the whole adoption/anti-birth control and controlling women’s sexuality in This nation has everything to do with controlling labor pool, race/immigration and privilege.
All backed, by yes, Religion, always Has been.
Jane
And yes I do confront and attack it from the perspective of Class and apologetically so
edit, that should be Non-apologetically…
Jane
I agree with some of your points Jane, but I would like also to know examples of far left social engineering. And yes, when someone asks you for it -althought it is your choice, of course- it would be kind to give them. Wether you think he is on denial or ignorant, I think we have a responsability and we should try to expresse our ideas.
What you were doing in your answer is what we have already seen with some fundies:
-I have proofs of the existence of God
-Please, show us them
-Well, it is obvious all around you, if you don’t see them it is because you don’t want to.
Also… you can’t imagine any use for “social engineering” wich could be good for an adult, responsible and free society? Aren’t you narrowing the meaning of “social engineering”?
Alright, I’ll deal with the Triggers, why I avoided this in first place–
I have spent my well pretty much entire life living under and dealing with Some form of totalitarianism, beginning with RA abuse during childhood–born in Washington D.C., ok, father in military/all family on his side works for gov/lower ring, other side of family, crime side [granddad] who did deals for the Senators, etc., he wasn’t powerful but ‘protected’, I, the child along with my brother got to live with the mind controls/abuse that have been passed down in our fascist family for eons–both Right and Left wing ideologies, going back years and political, from union to communism to fascism. AND BIG IN RELIGION.
My mother was totally screwed up, as was her mother–my uncle just died, years of drug use from the abuse he endured and I do mean abuse–in a very Nazi like way–food used as torture, you name it, sexual, all of it. So–we move, to a small town in Texas [that has connections to many controls in D.C. I won't get into that here] and I and my brother grow up with the Ultra-Conservative religious environment, patriarchal and racist to boot, with the whole purity outward and wife swapping/incest behind closed doors–lived in orphanage at 14 [for a year] and ran away from home/16 to live on streets, and that whole wonderful life–where I got at brief time into Christian faith until I saw the class prejudice there [I was always the poor white outcast whore--ok] so from there,
got into Marxism, HEAVILY and I do mean, revolutionary Marxism. I am still very much Marxist in many things, but I do KNOW the mind controls and the hypocrisy especially to women in Marxism/far left/liberal because I fought them on numerous issues, prostitution [and I know that world I'd soon kill some mother fucker than listen to the pro-prostitution shit] and porn, forced degender [which Didn't work in Soviet, one of the social engineer experiements that yes they Do do and still are in the left/far left--in Sweden for example, while women have made great strides, if you look at sociological studies you will find some interesting things on depression and mother hate--blaming the mother for all things ill/while neglecting the double and triple burdens [not to mention the failure to address the rise of Rapes due to other misogynist cultures being handed the open door to Rape lest we offend them b.s. under liberal cultural relativism because hey women are disposable] but anyway…so there are numerous social engineering experiments going on and have been, through psychology especially, and especially using Women—medicine is another huge one…FACT, read Mary Daly, good source there,
but where social engineering can really be seen is the manipulation of children/use of in Orphanages which I know personally, ok,, in mental health [esp of Poor children and children of Color--drug use, want to go there--oh and let's not forget to mention the birth control Given by coercion to low income women/women of color not that long ago that had been banned in public because it was KNOWN to cause cervical cancer,
but hey, why NOT give it to the poor, undesirables, other races...and I've seen that with my own eyes--funny how So many women in the low income housing ALL have cervical cancer and need their cervix's removed, yea BULLSHIT, that was under the liberals and conservatives.
Today as we speak there are still social engineering experiments going on, using the poor, children, Orphanages in Romania and Hungary and Russia ring a bell--or does children deprived of care until they become Catotonic and the leaders KNEW THIS WAS GOING ON AND DID NOTHING--another example,
France, the selling of children under child protection no less [black children] in the sixties/seventies to farms where there were used as slaves–some law suits over That one–another social engineering,
by social engineering meaning known abuses/psychological experiments with observations/statistics to see public indifference, apathy, reaction of victims, outcomes, etc., yes they go on and they go on in THIS country. Are they any good for society, you ask?
Well tell you what, I didn’t read this shit in some book some where, all the college books don’t tell me what I personally already know, and why I won’t take the time to sit here with empirical evidence [I do have it, lots of it, because to sort of half ass heal what was done to me as child, I've researched it and totalitarianism all my life, in libraries, archives, books, interviews with others from other nations, etc] and I know the results of social engineering and what it does to the minds of those they ‘engineer on’,
lets see, is it good for society, well let’s take those of us, especially broken children, let them loose on society and see what happens, How about that? Then you’ll have your answers….
I deplore social engineering of all kinds, mind controls, all that Nazi Stalinist elitist shit–I’ve seen it’s effects in the inner city, on the streets, to the homeless [yes they do experiment on homeless especially women, what is called Exploitation is often a clever social experiment done by those on top–and it’s all connected, tied into money, all of it, going all the way to the top,
and How do I know this, remember my father’s side of family work for the government–he’s passed on now but me and my brother got to live with the impact of the trade off,
because ‘we’ were disposable.
Got it….
any more questions?
Jane
One more thing, I still have my faith, in God, but not in Christianity, because I know how religion [Catholic and Protestant] are connected and tied into and work with those who like to socially experiment on children, all I’ll say on That matter,
and it is my faith, teetering as it often does [I don't believe in the churchianity or mensianity crap, take the Bible with much caution, so not into that whole dogma], but it is my faith,
that saved me from becoming a total nutcase, because I was there–that level of violence, and I’m female, I totally ‘get’ and understand the psychology of those who do resort to violence such as the gangs from El Salvador, ok, and I’ll say this,
the elites keep fucking around with the poor/marginalized and one day it Will bite them in the ass, because when humans are treated like lab rats they’ll act like rats, back them into a corner enough with enough of them and you’ll have the social engineering outcome–one day,
and they won’t be Discerning as to Whom they lash out at.
WE know that over half of the polices are not only about economic power/resources but engineering to keep the resources/power in the hands of the few–the middle class/buffer zone I term them don’t SEE it as much or care to, it’s easier to just attribute the ills to morality or illness or some other cocked eyed excuse, many are so wrapped up in their own time wars and consumption and tick tock orange big screen [I mean gee, media is nothing BUT a social experiment, like duh] they don’t notice, UNTIL IT TOUCHES THEM, THEN, THEN THEY NOTICE,
point being, they don’t notice or see the behind the scenes, experiments, research and marketing and controls, that are done because those they are done on are invisible, they are deemed as undesirable or defective and not worthy of attention–Unless of course it can be used as a ’cause’ [here's where the liberal bourgeoisie has it down pat and the religious, why they have more in common than they think] and can be used to make PROFIT, and of course, build up a NAME for oneself or one’s program, which of course ties back into the political/religious and all is well and we can all go back to sleep in our comfy beds and forget,
or pretend not to see/hear those little voices that peep out or escape now and then and tell what many simply don’t want to believe.
Why it’s easier to hate on/blame this religion [and yes they are guilty] or on this political party [they are all guilty] or on this ideology or ‘ism’, or hey, blame it on Women, that always works, or Jews, which ever,
but for those who KNOW who were the ‘objects of study’ or ‘objects of brutal violence/exploitation just because hey, we’re nothing so it’s ok, like prostitution, that’s a big one, trafficking, etc], well see WE know because we see ALL KINDS,
and we see just how far up the ladder rung it really goes.
So we don’t need to list tons of empirical evidence because we know it wouldn’t make a fucking bit of difference if we did anyway–it is what makes this whole nasty social engineering mechanism Work, always has, and always will until it eventually Consumes itself to death–and by that time, the lab rats will have exploded in numbers and will burst from the seams,
then well, suppose then, that really will be HELL on earth.
Jane
Thanks for your elaborated answer, I will need some time to re-read and understand it. At the moment, I feel sorry for what your family did to you and to themselves.
Though this is related to the exploitation surrogate industry it is related to the adoption industry, very similar in how both, exploit those women who are either of other ethnicity or who are low income-poor. It is highly tied into anti-birth control/control of women politics, and the patriarchal belief that women have a duty to produce ‘pure genetic children’ which goes into the whole race politics of adoption,
the whole thing is a mess, but in how it all works, is directly related to the politics of the far right-right and especially Christian right, as well as the nationalist socialists [purists]
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/06/25/surrogate-exploitation/
http://www.8asians.com/2008/01/22/rent-a-womb/
It all goes to that whole ‘we are ENTITLED’ mentality because WE are exceptional, Elect, and all that other top of the pyramid Egyptian mentality [propped up today under Churchianity/christianity] –
the same mentality that insists on family values [Mutterland] and only marrieds can adopt, etc. Why deconstructing of the lie has to also include the economic and social institutions via policies, or in other words,
follow the money trail.
that usually is the best indicator of the Real reason these adoption policies/family planning/city development are in place–but it’s important to also realize that the proponents of such are not just your Christian elitist bigots–but the secularists social engineers [including many of today's Malthusians, who are also elitist, racist and geneticist purists--the scientific elites/Nazi's, types, that interestingly Bakunin warned about years and years ago--he was Right, on that prediction--and the two, contrary to what many believe, Christian politik and nationalist-scientific elites are in bed together--you really see it when you look into the politiks controlling the poor, esp through globalization policies under Corporatist Fascism.
In other words--so many call to attention Hitler or Stalin--but oh how they forget, Mussolini [church supported].
Jane
I just thought of this…oh btw, don’t mean to get off on a tangent here, but I am glad you posted this today because this issue deeply exposes SO MUCH about what is wrong with the doctrines of Christianity–patriarchal and how they Do effect the lives of millions outside the church institutions in ways many are not aware of,
but with the adoption/surrogate exploitation, supported and/or propped up by the ideologies of the Christian right–we can now say, WE, like the Pharaohs [mores of that time] of Egypt, are producing the Hagars–the bondwoman and the slave, The one more that God Himself, REJECTED,
ironic that one.
Jane
Pingback: Around the Interwebz – Saving Throw to Disbelieve
Please. Judicial activism is a phrase used by conservatives to refer to decisions they don’t like. It has no definition other then “I disagree with this decision”. You can apply it to anything, and that you buy the conservative line of conservative judges only calling balls and strikes while liberal judges go around being activists speaks to your lack of analytical skills, if not your gullibility.
Respectfully, I disagree (and it isn’t just because I’m somewhat conservative). While punditry generally abuse the term to mean what you have outlined, there is a fundamental conflict on a deeper level between two popular methods of adjudicating cases under law; the textual approach preferred by conservatives, and the balancing approach preferred by liberals. There is much to be said (in both directions) about these two approaches, but one thing that can be reasonably said about the balancing approach (as opposed to the textual approach) is that it tends to deviate more strongly from the legislative intent. Hence, judicial activism.
I do not believe that conservative judges are impartial any more than liberal judges, only that their differing methods of interpretation lead to certain behavior patterns that make certain critiques particularly salient. Certainly the tendency of textual analysis to lead to inappropriate levels of deference to legislative action is an area in which conservative judges can be effectively criticized as much as liberal judges are criticized as activists.
There is no such thing as legislative intent. When you have a compromise amongst 2 or more individuals(i.e. legislation), then any sort of monolithic intent has gone out the window(to say nothing about whether even a single person’s intent can be objectively discerned, or how one would determine it with legislation written hundreds of years ago). This is why we have judges instead of some dude who makes each decision by looking in “The Big Book of Objective Legislative Intent” by Elemenope.
There is no such thing as legislative intent.
Er, there are definitely always reasons why there is a law rather than a lack of one. Those reasons are “legislative intent”. You seem rather to be saying that that intent is sometimes difficult to discern. There is some merit to that argument, but not nearly as much as you seem to assume.
When you have a compromise amongst 2 or more individuals(i.e. legislation), then any sort of monolithic intent has gone out the window(to say nothing about whether even a single person’s intent can be objectively discerned, or how one would determine it with legislation written hundreds of years ago).
Nobody said it would be simple or easy to analyze legislative intent, but a compromise is a direct indication of the intent *of the body*, which is what legislation ultimately is. One of the things that makes this quite a bit easier than it otherwise would be, though, is the general practice of most legislatures to actually spell out in the bill what the intent of the legislation is, in a section usually titled “purpose”. And even lacking that, judges have access to the debates and other elements of the legislative record that went into crafting the bill. Even for very old statutes and other pieces of law; for the US Constitution, for example, we have the incredibly detailed notes of the 2nd Continental Congress recorded by Madison, as well as the Federalist Papers by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay.
This is why we have judges instead of some dude who makes each decision by looking in “The Big Book of Objective Legislative Intent” by Elemenope.
In many cases, a judge *is* some dude/gal who makes each decision by looking at records indicating legislative intent (none of which, thankfully, were written by me). Usually it is clear enough on a plain text reading; most laws are excessively detailed but not particularly complicated in structure, and even so-called “liberal” judges are doing this and exactly this about 90% of the time. It is for cases when a plain-text reading fails or leads to an absurd result that liberal and conservative judges divide on how to proceed.
“speaks to your lack of analytical skills, if not your gullibility.”
Not true. You lack any convincing argument.
Yes, while your 5 word assertion that lack any convincing argument while failing to produce any reason as to why that is so is terribly convincing, I must say. You win!
5 words are more than enough for your type of person.
I agree with you. Judges have 3 options: yea, nay, or recuse themselves. They can (or should) only sentence within the guidelines of laws already established. The term activism implies, well, taking action. True, a judge’s ruling may trigger a cascade of political activity, but it’s still a far cry from proposing legislation.
I have two questions about US laws and legislation.
1.- There is such a “rara avis” as leftists judges??
2.- With your system, judges are not only those who interpret the laws, but in fact they sometimes change -between some boundaries- the meaning of the laws. Aren’t they overlapping then with the legislative power? Shouldn’t be that power in the hands of the society?
1.- There is such a “rara avis” as leftists judges??
Not really. What Americans tend to mean by “liberal” is generally closer in political science with what most would call communitarianism, perhaps with a dash of structuralism. Actual leftists are basically absent from all levels of government except for the very occasional legislator.
2.- With your system, judges are not only those who interpret the laws, but in fact they sometimes change -between some boundaries- the meaning of the laws. Aren’t they overlapping then with the legislative power? Shouldn’t be that power in the hands of the society?
Well, yes, but that’s how it implicitly works in many other places; we just decided early on to make it explicit. The meaning of laws (really, the meaning of any text in any language) is underdetermined at least partially. Having a definitive arbiter of interpretation (and constitutionality) helps to maintain the regularity that proper functioning of the law requires. Despite bellyaching from this or that political party, in general the judicial power is generally used sparingly and delicately in this fashion.
What troubles me is not that the pro-life gauntlet presumes adoption is the right way to solve the issue, but that they themselves so rarely put their actions out there in line with that principle.
If that half of the population that insists on outlawing abortion would open their homes to all of the children that decision would produce, without judgement – just like their holy book tells them, in fact – then there wouldn’t be much of a ‘problem’. Most, however, are only interested in being ‘moral’, not in relevant, useful action.
I’m quite definitely pro-choice, on the simple premise that any woman has the right (and in most cases the sole right) to determine what happens to her body, and to make all decisions regarding her body. That’s simple enough, I think… but if the anti-choice lobby wants to have a decent platform, I suspect they’re going to have to pony up real action instead of hyperactive, hypersensationalist hypocracy.
I’m not holding my breath.
In the womb, fundies care about the new “life form”. After birth, the fundies don’t give a bloody damn what happens to the unlucky child. Fundies will fight against gays adopting these unwanted children, but as soon as they are adopted by a heterosexual couple, once again no attention is paid to the children being farmed out to possibly lousy parents. Fundies just want to fight against any cause that will put them in the limelight while ignoring human injustices put upon the innocent ones. Love, justice and respect for one another are not any of the causes fundies will ever care about.
So unmarried couples are not fit to adopt children. Do married children have to give them up if they divorce?
married *couples*
Are judges in Georgia elected to post?
Yes.
Outstanding. Hopefully he’ll be de-elected next go around.
What irritates me about the pro-adoption stance is that many adoption agencies are Christian, and want kids to go to Christian homes. And many times, they are less than kind to the birth mother after she has the child. It’s basically as if she ceases to exist. No compensation so that she can pay for counseling or anything. I can imagine that, even if you vehemently do not want that child, there will be some lingering effects after it’s born. You’ve carried something around inside you for several months, it’s been kicking, your body has been preparing itself for the presence of a child in your life, and poof, nothing. It’s probably a relief, but it’s probably a very hollow feeling as well. Many, MANY women face issues after they’ve put a child up for adoption, and that lovely family that took the child could care less now that the woman has served her purpose. They’re often bullied into making that decision, too. It’s just a horrid, horrid situation in which women find themselves being treated as nothing more than emotionless, walking egg incubators. There are tons of stories about this floating around the Internet, and countless support groups for the birthmothers left in the wake. This one is nice and organized, but especially sad; it’s been 20 years and she’s still affected by it: http://www.musingsofthelame.com/2009/09/10-things-i-wish-i-knew-before-adoption.html
I do realize this is sliiiiightly off-topic, I guess, but it’s just something that makes me sad. Just a testament to the selfishness of many Christians, all disguised as do-gooding.