Plus a kid reaaally needs love, attention and stability in its first two years (and afterwards, but if it doesn't get that in its first two years it is REALLY screwed) or you're pretty much mentally unbalanced for the rest of your life.
So every kid that is adopted after two turns out to be mentally unbalanced?
No, from what I've read they need to have been quite severely neglected, which isn't necessarily the case, of course
Janson on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Plus a kid reaaally needs love, attention and stability in its first two years (and afterwards, but if it doesn't get that in its first two years it is REALLY screwed) or you're pretty much mentally unbalanced for the rest of your life.
So every kid that is adopted after two turns out to be mentally unbalanced?
Plus a kid reaaally needs love, attention and stability in its first two years (and afterwards, but if it doesn't get that in its first two years it is REALLY screwed) or you're pretty much mentally unbalanced for the rest of your life.
So every kid that is adopted after two turns out to be mentally unbalanced?
No, but if they don't have some kind of stabilizing force in their life (and a loving parent [or parents]), chances are they're going to be a bit imbalanced, mentally.
adoption isn't the magical fairy tale solution to unwanted babies that everyone seems to think it is, by the way
not saying that makes it BETTER or WORSE than abortion, and it's certainly BETTER than the kid getting raised by irresponsible parents who can't care for him/her properly
but given that? unless the kid is lucky enough to get adopted by a GOOD family within his or her first few years, that kid can and will have plenty of fucked up issues as is
Yeah, I don't get people who think adoption is the magical panacea for unwanted children. Most of those kids will end up in foster homes and grow up shouldering some serious emotional baggage for the rest of their lives. It's not fun to think about.
Unless you can line up adoptive parents before birth.
Healthy infants have a very high rate of adoption because people want babies. It's when the kids start hitting school age that the adoption rate slows down a lot or if the infant has a health problem.
BTW, wasn't there a movie or book about how people couldn't have abortions but they could leave the baby on someone's doorstep and that person had to keep it. Then when the kid hit a certain age the parents could essentially harvest their organs.
BTW, wasn't there a movie or book about how people couldn't have abortions but they could leave the baby on someone's doorstep and that person had to keep it. Then when the kid hit a certain age the parents could essentially harvest their organs.
Well that would certainly put an end to the organ donor problem we're having.
adoption isn't the magical fairy tale solution to unwanted babies that everyone seems to think it is, by the way
not saying that makes it BETTER or WORSE than abortion, and it's certainly BETTER than the kid getting raised by irresponsible parents who can't care for him/her properly
but given that? unless the kid is lucky enough to get adopted by a GOOD family within his or her first few years, that kid can and will have plenty of fucked up issues as is
Yeah, I don't get people who think adoption is the magical panacea for unwanted children. Most of those kids will end up in foster homes and grow up shouldering some serious emotional baggage for the rest of their lives. It's not fun to think about.
adoption isn't the magical fairy tale solution to unwanted babies that everyone seems to think it is, by the way
not saying that makes it BETTER or WORSE than abortion, and it's certainly BETTER than the kid getting raised by irresponsible parents who can't care for him/her properly
but given that? unless the kid is lucky enough to get adopted by a GOOD family within his or her first few years, that kid can and will have plenty of fucked up issues as is
Yeah, I don't get people who think adoption is the magical panacea for unwanted children. Most of those kids will end up in foster homes and grow up shouldering some serious emotional baggage for the rest of their lives. It's not fun to think about.
And them being dead is a better choice?
Yes.
Hacksaw on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Plus a kid reaaally needs love, attention and stability in its first two years (and afterwards, but if it doesn't get that in its first two years it is REALLY screwed) or you're pretty much mentally unbalanced for the rest of your life.
So every kid that is adopted after two turns out to be mentally unbalanced?
You can't use extremes like "every" or "all" in any of these cases, but studies have shown that without stability (at LEAST!) in his or her first two to three years of development (both emotionally and cognitively speaking), the kid's chances of developing severe mental issues greatly increases.
The issues hit even before the first few years of the school-going life (i.e., pre-K, so 5 years old), which is when social development begins on a whole new scale, and then that kid's pre-existing issues get exacerbated as they grow.
It's all in the foundation. If they don't have something stable, if they don't have attention, in the building of that foundation, these kids are highly likely to throw out some crazy emotional, cognitive, and even social problems even before puberty.
Unsurprisingly, no mention of the father of that baby.
Jesus
Macro9 on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Maximum Zero if you were in a burning building and in one room there was a petri dish full of fertilized embryos and in the other room was a two year old child and you only had time to go to one room before the building escape which one would you rescue and why?
adoption isn't the magical fairy tale solution to unwanted babies that everyone seems to think it is, by the way
not saying that makes it BETTER or WORSE than abortion, and it's certainly BETTER than the kid getting raised by irresponsible parents who can't care for him/her properly
but given that? unless the kid is lucky enough to get adopted by a GOOD family within his or her first few years, that kid can and will have plenty of fucked up issues as is
Yeah, I don't get people who think adoption is the magical panacea for unwanted children. Most of those kids will end up in foster homes and grow up shouldering some serious emotional baggage for the rest of their lives. It's not fun to think about.
And them being dead is a better choice?
Every aborted baby was going to be the next Hitler.
BYToady on
Battletag BYToady#1454
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
adoption isn't the magical fairy tale solution to unwanted babies that everyone seems to think it is, by the way
not saying that makes it BETTER or WORSE than abortion, and it's certainly BETTER than the kid getting raised by irresponsible parents who can't care for him/her properly
but given that? unless the kid is lucky enough to get adopted by a GOOD family within his or her first few years, that kid can and will have plenty of fucked up issues as is
Yeah, I don't get people who think adoption is the magical panacea for unwanted children. Most of those kids will end up in foster homes and grow up shouldering some serious emotional baggage for the rest of their lives. It's not fun to think about.
And them being dead is a better choice?
Every aborted baby was going to be the next Hitler.
Plus a kid reaaally needs love, attention and stability in its first two years (and afterwards, but if it doesn't get that in its first two years it is REALLY screwed) or you're pretty much mentally unbalanced for the rest of your life.
So every kid that is adopted after two turns out to be mentally unbalanced?
You can't use extremes like "every" or "all" in any of these cases, but studies have shown that without stability (at LEAST!) in his or her first two to three years of development (both emotionally and cognitively speaking), the kid's chances of developing severe mental issues greatly increases.
The issues hit even before the first few years of the school-going life (i.e., pre-K, so 5 years old), which is when social development begins on a whole new scale, and then that kid's pre-existing issues get exacerbated as they grow.
It's all in the foundation. If they don't have something stable, if they don't have attention, in the building of that foundation, these kids are highly likely to throw out some crazy emotional, cognitive, and even social problems even before puberty.
Those kinds of things build character
Jigrah on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Maximum Zero if you were in a burning building and in one room there was a petri dish full of fertilized embryos and in the other room was a two year old child and you only had time to go to one room before the building escape which one would you rescue and why?
it's funny how some people think death is the worst that can happen to someone
it's really, REALLY funny
And in this case it's not necessarily death but more like nonexistence.
yeah
I tend to stay away from arguments that try to determine when "life" begins, but I'm sure if I were to actually think on it honestly, I'd probably come to the conclusion that a fetus doesn't know what's going on until it's hit the third trimester or so
still, I look at this strictly based on the well-being of the child AFTER birth and of the ability for the parents to be allowed to make such a choice if they deem it necessary
it's funny how some people think death is the worst that can happen to someone
it's really, REALLY funny
And in this case it's not necessarily death but more like nonexistence.
yeah
I tend to stay away from arguments that try to determine when "life" begins, but I'm sure if I were to actually think on it honestly, I'd probably come to the conclusion that a fetus doesn't know what's going on until it's hit the third trimester or so
still, I look at this strictly based on the well-being of the child AFTER birth and of the ability for the parents to be allowed to make such a choice if they deem it necessary
it's funny how some people think death is the worst thing that can happen to someone
it's really, REALLY funny
Viv have you ever heard the story of the Pillowman? I think you'd like it.
no sir
enlighten me
The Pillowman is a being made out of pillows who visits people on the verge of suicide because of the tortured lives they have led. The Pillowman travels back in time to the person's childhood and convinces them to commit suicide, thereby avoiding a life of suffering. This task saddens the Pillowman, however, and he decides to visit his own younger self, who readily commits suicide. This relieves the Pillowman's sadness, but also causes all the children he saved to live out their miserable lives and eventually die alone.
For more information, I recommend the play The Pillowman by Martin McDonagh (aka the writer/director of In Bruges).
I think the biggest problem a lot of people have is there is no ironclad date that we can consider a mass of cells to be "life". Some people say it's at the first sign of electrical activity in the brain, some people say it's at the first heartbeat, some people say it's at 168 days, some people say it's at birth, some people say it's at conception.
If we could track down a point where we could widely consider a difference between sccraping out a mass of cells and killing a child, I think we'd have better odds at compromise between the two groups.
Posts
No, from what I've read they need to have been quite severely neglected, which isn't necessarily the case, of course
No but the odds are certainly against them.
Healthy infants have a very high rate of adoption because people want babies. It's when the kids start hitting school age that the adoption rate slows down a lot or if the infant has a health problem.
BTW, wasn't there a movie or book about how people couldn't have abortions but they could leave the baby on someone's doorstep and that person had to keep it. Then when the kid hit a certain age the parents could essentially harvest their organs.
crown survivors as kings
They'll just turn into ham eating ferals that hate hates.
please.
how about a 5 year old mother?
you can search wiki for "Lina Medina" but not if you're worried about seeing a naked, pregnant five-year-old
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
They're all criminals!
Satans..... hints.....
And them being dead is a better choice?
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
You would.
Racist.
Satans..... hints.....
You can't use extremes like "every" or "all" in any of these cases, but studies have shown that without stability (at LEAST!) in his or her first two to three years of development (both emotionally and cognitively speaking), the kid's chances of developing severe mental issues greatly increases.
The issues hit even before the first few years of the school-going life (i.e., pre-K, so 5 years old), which is when social development begins on a whole new scale, and then that kid's pre-existing issues get exacerbated as they grow.
It's all in the foundation. If they don't have something stable, if they don't have attention, in the building of that foundation, these kids are highly likely to throw out some crazy emotional, cognitive, and even social problems even before puberty.
That is messed up.
Jesus
Satans..... hints.....
it's really, REALLY funny
And in this case it's not necessarily death but more like nonexistence.
Every aborted baby was going to be the next Hitler.
no sir
enlighten me
And guess what? We kicked Hitler's ASS
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Those kinds of things build character
What's really hilarious is how some people think they know for a fact death is the best possible option for someone they don't even know!
Seriously
it's a retarded man who is crying and promising a broken egg that it will still be a chicken some day.
And that they'll play together in a field when it gets better.
yeah
I tend to stay away from arguments that try to determine when "life" begins, but I'm sure if I were to actually think on it honestly, I'd probably come to the conclusion that a fetus doesn't know what's going on until it's hit the third trimester or so
still, I look at this strictly based on the well-being of the child AFTER birth and of the ability for the parents to be allowed to make such a choice if they deem it necessary
yeah i was gonna say ahaha
If it has a heartbeat, it's a living thing.
This is my opinion.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
For more information, I recommend the play The Pillowman by Martin McDonagh (aka the writer/director of In Bruges).
so if it doesn't, it's not?
If we could track down a point where we could widely consider a difference between sccraping out a mass of cells and killing a child, I think we'd have better odds at compromise between the two groups.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral