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

When families un-adopt a child (2018)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#141

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #138
rayiner wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say anything about birth control? I’m not Catholic. I’m talking about defining “child free” as some sort of identity instead of being a disappointment to your mom quietly. It’s like building an identity around stealing other people’s lunches from the office fridge. If you’re going to do it, do it in a way that maintains plausible deniability.

As a Catholic: this is a bad, reactionary take. Pull up any of the dozens of lists of "famous childless people" Google will give you and note how many of them you wouldn't ever think to accuse of "stealing other people's lunches from the office fridge". Our duty is to leave the world a better place than we found it. One way to do that is indeed to raise children to keep the ball rolling forward, but there are others.…

Like I said I’m not Catholic. I suspect my view on this is strongly shaped by Islam, as a matter of acculturation rather than theology. The way I see it, America isn’t morally different from a Bangladeshi village. Our efforts are more specialized and allow us to subsist in greater comfort. But the history books won’t talk about 99% of people involved with Facebook any more than they’ll talk about Bangladeshi rice farmers. For all but a few of us, our kids are the only legacy we’ll leave.

I’m not taking aim at “elites.” Living life to maximize personal self-gratification is pervasive in American culture. I’m mad at the elites only insofar as they’re fishing for moral justifications for this practice, where I think non-elites at least are a little beholden to traditional socialization and feel a little guilty for “not doing what they’re supposed to do.”

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#142

Post by rayiner »

kasey_junk wrote: post #139
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the above. I’m from a Muslim country—in Islam, getting married and having children (if you’re able) is a moral duty. I was never a practicing Muslim, but I believe that this view is basically correct. Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas…

“Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas among more educated people—is just such a sad, atomized experience” This entire paragraph is three assertions given without evidence. Feel free to own these ideas as if they are truths but arguing axiomatica…

> This entire paragraph is three assertions given without evidence. Feel free to own these ideas as if they are truths but arguing axiomatically from them is just wrong.

Sure, morality and the purpose of life are generally axiomatic. The notion that society should elevate personal choice, instead of impressing upon people expected behaviors, is also axiomatic. But there’s also an empirical element. In North America, virtually all population growth will come from Latin American immigrants who have more traditional notions of family. In Europe it’ll be Muslims. Individualistic culture is at the height of its power, but there’s a good chance it’s on the wane.

> Finally, I’m in about the most liberal, urban, educated environment you can live in the US and I can’t imagine how much more engaged the community could be in for parenting. It’s a source of constant joy to me how engaged my family is with our community and vice versa.

Except there’s no kids! We’re down from children being 36% of the population in 1960 to 22%. In places like San Francisco it’s 13%. There’s network effects to parenting and being a kid that disappear when the concentration of parents and kids decreases. Parenting is a lonely experience in a modern American city, especially if you have kids in your 20s. You may know other parents, but you have to “organize something” to see them socially. The “roving band of neighborhood kids” is a distant memory. (I’m reminded of the show “Hey Arnold,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey_Arnold!, which depicts urban life full of kids in a way that seems almost anachronistic.)

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#143

Post by kasey_junk »

rayiner wrote: post #142
kasey_junk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas among more educated people—is just such a sad, atomized experience” This entire paragraph is three assertions given without evidence. Feel free to own these ideas as if they are truths but arguing axiomatica…

> This entire paragraph is three assertions given without evidence. Feel free to own these ideas as if they are truths but arguing axiomatically from them is just wrong. Sure, morality and the purpose of life are generally axiomatic. The notion that society should elevate personal choice, instead of impressing upon people expected behaviors, is also axiomatic. But there’s also an empirical element. In North America,…

Arguing axiomatically then, I think the decline in roving bands of kids is directly tied to 2 completely different issues than you.

The first is the end result of 50 years of car centric city planning. It is unsafe for kids to rove in many places.

The second is the gutting of local public schools. Because wealthy parents are now encouraged to transport their children to far away schools and non-school affiliated activities the family spends all of its time in cars away from their neighborhood.

And for what it’s worth roving bands of kids are a common occurrence here in Hyde Park Chicago. It’s one of the reasons I live here.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#144

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #141
tptacek wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Catholic: this is a bad, reactionary take. Pull up any of the dozens of lists of "famous childless people" Google will give you and note how many of them you wouldn't ever think to accuse of "stealing other people's lunches from the office fridge". Our duty is to leave the world a better place than we found it. One way to do that is indeed to raise children to keep the ball rolling forward, but there are others.…

Like I said I’m not Catholic. I suspect my view on this is strongly shaped by Islam, as a matter of acculturation rather than theology. The way I see it, America isn’t morally different from a Bangladeshi village. Our efforts are more specialized and allow us to subsist in greater comfort. But the history books won’t talk about 99% of people involved with Facebook any more than they’ll talk about Bangladeshi rice far…

I feel like I wrote a pretty concise and direct comment, and you didn't really read it. We agree that living life to maximize personal self-gratification isn't a moral good, and that it's bad to valorize doing so. Where we part company is your belief that choosing not to have children is evidence that someone is living a life for their own gratification; clearly: no.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#145

Post by tptacek »

kasey_junk wrote: post #143
rayiner wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This entire paragraph is three assertions given without evidence. Feel free to own these ideas as if they are truths but arguing axiomatically from them is just wrong. Sure, morality and the purpose of life are generally axiomatic. The notion that society should elevate personal choice, instead of impressing upon people expected behaviors, is also axiomatic. But there’s also an empirical element. In North America,…

Arguing axiomatically then, I think the decline in roving bands of kids is directly tied to 2 completely different issues than you. The first is the end result of 50 years of car centric city planning. It is unsafe for kids to rove in many places. The second is the gutting of local public schools. Because wealthy parents are now encouraged to transport their children to far away schools and non-school affiliated acti…

Common in Oak Park, too. You came out and visited this area, Rayiner! Not our fault you decided to move to an exurb. :)

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#146

Post by msrenee »

notch656a wrote: post #121
msrenee wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the solution is to screen adoptive parents much more thoroughly. It is incredibly traumatic to find out that the people you live with and depend on don't want you around any more. Whether you think the parents at that point should nut up or find a new placement for the kid, it's already messed the child up just knowing that they might lose their home and family. Why are people able to adopt 17 kids and li…

You would see less, but it would still happen. There has to be some release valve other than putting the kid and parents into a corner like trapped rats, where risk for exposure to neglect/child abuse/trauma skyrocket. If you simply say a kid can't be re-adopted out by someone who's had them for X time, you're basically sealing the fate of some kids.

I agree that there should absolutely be a way to rehome children whose families aren't able to handle the situation. The point of the article was that it needs to be tracked and regulated much, much more thoroughly. The article focuses on these online groups where people advertise these children and hand them off to interested strangers with basically no safety checks in place.

It seems like this often happens with parents who have had enough issues with the authorities in the past that going through more legitimate avenues would trigger an investigation that would likely see all of their children removed from the home. Which is why I think the root of the problem is people who are not qualified being allowed to adopt children, often way more than any reasonable person could hope to care for.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#147

Post by tenuousemphasis »

notch656a wrote: post #101
tenuousemphasis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the number of children in foster care or worse, the choice isn't between being in a home where you're wanted and one where you're not wanted, it's being in a home where you're not wanted or not in a home. Which do you think is worse for a child?

False dichotomy. The unwanting family could seek a willing party to adopt the child.

If there are SO MANY willing parties, why are the foster and adoption systems overloaded with children? Where are all these good Christian families who want to adopt these children!?

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#148

Post by mwcampbell »

rayiner wrote: post #95
Permit wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an unusually low-value comment from an otherwise high-value commenter. Do you take issue with the label “child free” or with the fact that some couples would prefer not to have children? Or maybe with the idea that an organization advocates for these people?

All of the above. I’m from a Muslim country—in Islam, getting married and having children (if you’re able) is a moral duty. I was never a practicing Muslim, but I believe that this view is basically correct. Society as a whole needs to be engaged in the project of raising the next generation, and that breaks down if having children is treated as an individual choice. Raising kids in America—especially in urban areas…

> What would have been the point of leaving all our friends and family behind to immigrate here if our family just dies out on this stupid continent?

The point would be that, hopefully, the move enabled you and your children to have happier lives. It's enough to enjoy good things while they last, regardless of how long that is.

The future of the world itself is pretty uncertain at this point. I, for one, wouldn't want to father a child, only to have their experience growing up be like chapter 1 of Ready Player One (the book), i.e. civilization in decline, with parents who weren't prepared for it. Why risk adding to the suffering that might be coming? There will certainly be enough people having children to keep humanity going regardless.

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#149

Post by hollerith »

rayiner wrote: post #119
toomuchtodo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children owe their parents and extended family nothing, as they had no choice being brought into the world. What they do with their life is entirely their choosing. Not everyone considers children joyful, but instead a burdensome, unnecessary obligation they can opt out of in nations with strong human rights protections. There is a difference between suicide as a species and an individual voluntarily choosing to not…

> Children owe their parents and extended family nothing, as they had no choice being brought into the world. What they do with their life is entirely their choosing. Terminal-state Western individualism. Not everything is about “choice.” Life chooses for us, gives us roles and duties and obligations. We come into this world owing a debt to our parents and family who help care for us that we can never repay, only pay…

>We come into this world owing a debt to our parents and family who help care for us that we can never repay

Are you sure this belief is not the long-term effects of a kind of Stockholm syndrome? Namely, a irrational reaction to those years when you were utterly dependent on your parents?

Re: When families un-adopt a child (2018)

#150

Post by notch656a »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #147
notch656a wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. The unwanting family could seek a willing party to adopt the child.

If there are SO MANY willing parties, why are the foster and adoption systems overloaded with children? Where are all these good Christian families who want to adopt these children!?

If it's so hard to find people to adopt, why on earth would we limit the pool even further by ensuring people can be 100% sure they can handle and integrate whatever random child they end up with? That's an impossible task, and would vastly reduce the potential adopter pool even further.

Sometimes adoption process fails, and the family can't handle the kid, perhaps even after years in that family. You can't just shut them in together like trapped rats with no escape hatch to seek another family to adopt so the kid has some chance of being with a family that wants them.

Post reply on HN