Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Found Our Son in the Subway

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 182 posts

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#101

Post by corin_ »

unreal37 wrote: post #94
twstws wrote: post #92

This was hard for me to read. I spent four years waiting to adopt a child.Did almost a year of training and home visits, then waited. And waited. Why does it take so long? Because we selfishly insisted that we'd only take one ortwo children. The social workers were not subtle in letting us know that we were selfish to not want a sibling group of 4 or 5(?!) kids all at once. They made it absolutely clear that we could…

Thanks for sharing this. The OP is a great story as well. Bureaucracy sucks more than it helps almost always.

I think that's much too simplistic a view - I don't know whether you're right or wrong, but based on the way you worded it I think you almost certainly don't either.

If, without paperwork, one child was sexually abused for every one child who got adopted, would you agree that more bureaucracy was needed? Now go to the other extreme, where the bad scenario happens only once in a million and is "child gets insulted by new parents", meanwhile no other children are getting adopted to prevent this minor one-in-a-million chance. Definitely too much paperwork.

Before saying that bureaucracy, in this area, helps more than hinders, or hinders more than helps, you not only need to know these stats (i.e. how many children would be worse or better off with more or less bureaucracy), but also make a subjective judgement call on what rations are acceptable.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#102

Post by corin_ »

slurgfest wrote: post #83
mtinkerhess wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents are parents. Straight parents are parents. Gay parents are parents. There's no fundamental difference.

One of the implications of this "question" relies on the common belief that gay men are pedophiles and/or will teach gay sex to the children. In some people's heads, it's a matter of wicked, unclean gays corrupting the innocent children. If nobody had such beliefs, then it is virtually impossible to understand why we would suppose that gay people are unfit as parents.

No, there are arguments (I'm not saying good ones) for why gay parents are different. Traditionally fathers and mothers have had different roles, this is cultural, so what happens if a gay couple adopt and don't adapt to cover the traditional role of the other gender. To use an out-dated (very) and somewhat sexist example, how will the son of lesbians learn to hunt animals, how will the daughter of gay men learn to make clothes?

While I don't agree with these arguments (for the record, I'm gay), it would be possible to make them without being homophobic. Would they be made in nobody had the beliefs you describe? Perhaps not, but they could be.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#103

Post by patdennis »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #97
polymatter wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But you, and these guys, and everyone else just do what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years." I don't mean to scare you, but that is the mother of all sampling bias (to quote xkcd). The parents that don't do so well, generally have a smaller chance of being grandparents. I'm sure all of you reading this will do just fine though. I also need to say that that judge was awesome.

If they neglect their kids so bad that they actually die, which I guess used to happen frequently before the invention of welfare etc. Now you have a lot of not so great parents spawning at an alarming rate.

Ah yes. The social safety net is causing society to be overrun by a plague of undesirables. If we would only let people die in the streets, our society would be pure.

Edit: I'm being sarcastic.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#105

Post by ck2 »

Lovely story but what kind of husband offers to adopt a child without even previously discussing it his wife?

Great relationship there. This story turned out well only because of her.

BTW this is why many cities now have a law there is no penalty to leave a newborn at a firestation, yet some cities still resist it.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#106

Post by gsmaverick »

ck2 wrote: post #105

Lovely story but what kind of husband offers to adopt a child without even previously discussing it his wife? Great relationship there. This story turned out well only because of her. BTW this is why many cities now have a law there is no penalty to leave a newborn at a firestation, yet some cities still resist it.

Fyi, I believe this is actually a gay couple given the author's name is Peter and his partner is named Danny.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#107

Post by ck2 »

gsmaverick wrote: post #106
ck2 wrote: post #105

Lovely story but what kind of husband offers to adopt a child without even previously discussing it his wife? Great relationship there. This story turned out well only because of her. BTW this is why many cities now have a law there is no penalty to leave a newborn at a firestation, yet some cities still resist it.

Fyi, I believe this is actually a gay couple given the author's name is Peter and his partner is named Danny.

Oops, my fault for not paying attention to details.

Still, who adopts a child spontaneously without consulting their parter?

The real miracle here is the partner that didn't leave him over it.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#108

Post by jiggy2011 »

patdennis wrote: post #103
jiggy2011 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they neglect their kids so bad that they actually die, which I guess used to happen frequently before the invention of welfare etc. Now you have a lot of not so great parents spawning at an alarming rate.

Ah yes. The social safety net is causing society to be overrun by a plague of undesirables. If we would only let people die in the streets, our society would be pure. Edit: I'm being sarcastic.

That's an exaggeration, sterilisation should be sufficient.

Edit: I'm being sarcastic.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#109

Post by vaadu »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #108
patdennis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes. The social safety net is causing society to be overrun by a plague of undesirables. If we would only let people die in the streets, our society would be pure. Edit: I'm being sarcastic.

That's an exaggeration, sterilisation should be sufficient. Edit: I'm being sarcastic.

Not a bad idea. What if the government offered free tubal ligation and vasectomy. If you later want to have kids that cost is on you to reverse it.

Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway

#110

Post by gojomo »

tptacek wrote: post #52

Sound reasonable to me. That judge is probably a parent. I suspect most parents understand: if we waited to be "ready", nobody would ever be a parent. Conventional parents get months and months of notice. If they're like me, they're still nowhere close to "ready". It's terrifying. But you, and these guys, and everyone else just do what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years.

Indeed, the judge managed (on an ultra-compressed timescale) to provide this same-sex couple the same experience of surprise parenthood that alt-sex couples may have through an unplanned pregnancy.

This principle could be advanced more systematically. That is, perhaps adoption by same-sex couples should not just be permitted, but random and compulsory. If you're married and of child-rearing age, you might be assigned a baby!

The agency making the assignments can be called the State Taskforce Organizing Reproductive Co-equality, or STORC. So when these children ask where they came from, the happy parents can honestly say, "the STORC dropped you off".

Post reply on HN