Talk:Adoption
From Academic Kids
Template:Limitedgeographicscope
Source: "South Africa Allows Gay Adoption", http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=515&ncid=723&e=1&u=/ap/20020910/ap_on_re_af/south_africa_gay_rights -- April
Are there any articles on step parents? --zandperl 01:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the statement "although there is a world of difference outside of the legal world." It is NPOV and an unsupported assertion.
I have removed the following statements from "reasons for adoption," because I think they are inaccurate. If I'm wrong, I would like to see some corroborating evidence. I have also cleaned up that paragraph.
"However this reason is diminishing as fertility clinics provide solutions to couples or individuals whom cannot conceive. As the price for adoption increases and clinics become more affordable, adoption agencies see clinics as competition."
"This [adoption of a child by fertile couples] has become fashionable in recent years with the phenomenon of couples giving birth to a child of one sex then adopting another from the other sex." 68.229.219.84 02:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The following seems like axe-grinding against someone's perception of PC language:
"In most cultures, family and family heritage are valued. Honest language, which does not promote unrelated adoptive situations for children over natural parents, is used. Adoption businesses encourage biased "positive adoption language" to build up their businesses. This biased language makes people who are unrelated to a child appear to be more entitled to a child than her own family is."
I'm not sure "honest" or "biased" really apply to examples listed in the chart. And the business angle leaves out individuals or families who may use "positive adoption language" to avoid making a child feel unwanted.
Someone who's more knowledgeable about adoption circles than I am may want to edit this. 61.51.66.233 06:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- You're right - I have reverted the anonymous edits. More viewpoints on adoption are welcome, but Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe against adoption. That was some ugly stuff. Danlovejoy 13:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
Hmmm
I'm not sure that this knows what it want to do. If it is intended to be a statement and explanation of laws, then it is dangerously inaccurate. If it is intended as an examination of the social and cultural contexts within which adoptions take place, then it is highly selective and not a little judgmental. I would propose that the two aspects be separated. A brief statement of the laws of particular states and the international regulation of transnational adoptions would be one page. Then taking the role of the state as parens patriae, an examination of how and why a state should become involved in adjusting parental relationships could be a second page. I would be prepared to rough out material for others to work on if the view of the editorial staff is that this page should be rebuilt from the ground up.
Davod91
- I am in favor of most of the changes you proposed. I am probably responsible for the preachiness, so if it can be made more NPOV and universal, I would wholeheartedly approve.
- Perhaps we need a very general Adoption page with links to adoption in various cultures. However, I don't think we're going to have much luck condensing international regulation of transnational adoption into one article or section. Each set of countries has different laws, so the web of relationships is astoundingly huge. Add to that individual agency regulations, state and local government laws, regulations of different agencies of various national governments etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.. Danlovejoy 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
neutrality issue
The following sentence implies that there is soem sort of causal link between developing countries and scoial predudice against monoparental families. This may or may not be the case, but as it is unsubstatiated and irrelevant I have edited this sentenece accordingly:
In some developing countries, where single parenthood may be considered scandalous and unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants"
Edited to:
In some countries, where single parenthood may be considered scandalous and unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants"
Adoptism
Anonymous editor hijacked the "Adoptism" section to add a bunch of anti-adoption POV. I have reverted just that section to the last version before the POVandalism. Danlovejoy 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
primal wound
I added a section on the phenomenon of the so-called 'primal wound', because the whole page didn't mention even once any of the consequence of adoption regarding the well being of the adoptee. If you plan to edit this paragraph for whatever reason, please refer to www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0963648004?v=glance and http://primal-page.com/verrier.htm for reference. User:Adidas June 2 2005
